There are crucial differences between online privacy controls and DRM in not only in what kinds of information are covered, but how, and who is limited. DRM is about technological controls weaved into the information itself, applicable to all its consumers. Online privacy controls are voluntary promises made by single actors, such as Facebook and its partners.
It would be more apt to compare Bruce Schneier's proposed privacy legislation to the original introduction of copyright law than to the DMCA. Right now basic privacy laws hardly exist (EU excepted), and in their place is a frontier of one-sided contracts that change at the discretion of the information recipients. It would be skipping a step or two to go straight to DMCA-like additional legislation to prop up technological controls that attempt to narrowly enforce the basic legislation, when we haven't even figured out what the basic legislation would be.
Another big difference is the asymmetry between the number of producers and recipients: privacy is about relatively few companies receiving data belonging to many people, while copyright is about many people receiving information from fewer authors. Among other effects, that would tend to make enforcement of privacy easier than copyright, since the potential lawbreakers would be both fewer and highly visible. Facebook breaking a law is a big deal, and therefore difficult even without any technological restrictions. (Of course, getting such a law passed would be another story, and comes down to whether privacy sufficiently captures the public's imagination.)
It would be more apt to compare Bruce Schneier's proposed privacy legislation to the original introduction of copyright law than to the DMCA. Right now basic privacy laws hardly exist (EU excepted), and in their place is a frontier of one-sided contracts that change at the discretion of the information recipients. It would be skipping a step or two to go straight to DMCA-like additional legislation to prop up technological controls that attempt to narrowly enforce the basic legislation, when we haven't even figured out what the basic legislation would be.
Another big difference is the asymmetry between the number of producers and recipients: privacy is about relatively few companies receiving data belonging to many people, while copyright is about many people receiving information from fewer authors. Among other effects, that would tend to make enforcement of privacy easier than copyright, since the potential lawbreakers would be both fewer and highly visible. Facebook breaking a law is a big deal, and therefore difficult even without any technological restrictions. (Of course, getting such a law passed would be another story, and comes down to whether privacy sufficiently captures the public's imagination.)