I wish the world were like what is described in the editorial. But even over here, where we have pretty strong data protection laws, it isn't like that. Mostly the holders of data don't give a damn about the person who is the subject of that data. But the subject has a very good chance of getting errors corrected, and getting people who play fast and loose with his trust punished, if he finds out about it - and we have laws requiring the people who control the data to provide the suject with details for a small (varies from country to country, but typically about 10 euros) fee if he requests them, so someone who suspects a problem (and a fortiori someone who knows there is a problem, like blandry who posted his tale of woe above) can get things fixed quite quickly and cheaply.

Warning - here beginneth the RANT

The EU insists on "safe harbour" provisions for any personal data passed from a company inthe EU to one in the USA. Most of us over here think that those "safe harbour" provisions are hopelessly weak, but we know that getting even that much out of the USA was like squeezing blood out of a stone - the USA establishment apparently cares nothing for the well-being of the data-subjects, it cares only for the well-being of the corporations / foundations / rich individuals who make big campaign donations come congressional election time, and was extremely reluctant to provide for EU citizens a protection which it denies to its own citizens subjects. So I suspect that the editorial is describing a dream world that will never exist in the USA unless the American people stage another revolution to restore to themselves the sovereignty guaranteed by their consitution but usurped by the currently ruling plutocracy.