alt Hacker NewsLysenko as in the Soviet scientist? I don't really see what, if anything, a mistaken belief about evolution has to do with legal or moral definitions about ownership of data.
Saying "Lysenkoism is true" is factually wrong, but saying "physical possession is equivalent to ownership" is just a very fringe political opinion.
So I don't see how "the GDPR" can be wrong, unless you mean it in the sense of "the death penalty is (morally) wrong", which is just your opinion in that case.
My point is this: If your insurance provider, for example, obtains access to your medical records, and store them on their servers, does that make it "their data" to use as they please? This would imply that:
> But if the data is on a storage media that you own, I would consider it your data
Ah, I meant Lysenkoism being mandated and genetics being outlawed in the Soviet Union.
> but saying "physical possession is equivalent to ownership" is just a very fringe political opinion.
It is a fringe opinion in today's West, but only relatively recently: since the 1970s, one might argue. The fringe opinion, to be clear, is the older one implied to some degree by "possession is nine tenths of the law", and which views copyright and patent as an artificial grant from the State, useful, but not property in the same sense as a table or a knife is someone's property.
(edited for typo)