From Kant (or a more naturalistic form of ethics respecting human freedom as a principle) people have a deserved autonomy that should not be infringed. To the degree that information allows other people to infringe your autonomy to an unfair degree, you should have the means to defend yourself. That means that some information about you needs to be more accessible to you than to anyone else. Not all information serves that purpose. In fact, most does not.
If all information about you belonged to you, it would be absolutely impossible to ever conduct a double-blind drug trial. It would be impossible for people to composite medical outcome results honestly (because each patient would be able to withhold or contribute their information, and the demographics of who would choose to do which level of control would make the resulting statistics useless.) It would be impossible to take a crowd scene photograph for journalistic purposes. We could never document war crimes. In fact, it would be basically impossible to prosecute any crime not committed in the open.
Even some information that is dangerous to you has to belong to someone else if it is necessary to monitor crime and defend the rights of those around you. Statistical medical information needs to belong to those who verify the scientific underpinnings of medicine remain in good repair. Etc. Information generally needs to belong to those most capable of making sense of it, as long as they cannot use it to control individuals unduly.
So the proper way of looking at information accessibility in general, ethically, needs to be in terms of power, influence, justice, and self-defense, not as property rights (whatever the habit-to-date of law has been.) Even patent law, though referred to as intellectual property rights, is not about property rights, it is about making the sharing of art and technology safe for its producers. So it is ultimately about safety and an indirect form of self-defense.