> The point is that you should not have to make sacrifices for privacy.
I don't see a realistic way for that to happen. Sure we could change things, but there will be a sacrifice by someone in the system as a whole.
For example, we could pass laws banning targeted marketing. That will make advertising less valuable and companies who sell them will get less revenue because surely an advertiser won't pay the same price to show an ad for a diapers to a pregnant woman than to show it to a random sampling of society? So now my ad-supported website will make less showing ads. I'll have to compensate somehow. Maybe I'll start charging for access to make up the difference. Some people will be fine with that -- they'd rather pay more for privacy. Others won't. This kind of a solution would improve privacy. But there is still a cost.
Some people won't mind the cost. Others would rather pay by losing privacy instead. Passing laws takes away that choice from the consumer. Personally, I'd rather decide for myself than have someone make that choice for me no matter how much they think they have my interests at heart.
Yeah, but this happens with any change. It's the same with the minimum wage, for example. The argument is, "Well, if my business is required to pay a living wage, I'll go out of business because people won't pay more for my product or service." Yep. If your business can't follow the law, you will likely go out of business trying to. And laws change, and that can affect your business. This is the same as it's always been.
If your business goes away, some other business that can sustain itself under the law will pop up there (possibly in the same area of business, possibly a completely different one), or the economy will start tanking because no business can sustain themselves due to the new laws.
Sometimes it's not a good idea to leave the choice up to the consumer. (for example: If you stop allowing us to keep slaves, we'll have to pay workers and prices will rise!) Sometimes there are bigger considerations. I feel that privacy is one of those, personally, but it's valid to disagree with me.
I don't see a realistic way for that to happen. Sure we could change things, but there will be a sacrifice by someone in the system as a whole.
For example, we could pass laws banning targeted marketing. That will make advertising less valuable and companies who sell them will get less revenue because surely an advertiser won't pay the same price to show an ad for a diapers to a pregnant woman than to show it to a random sampling of society? So now my ad-supported website will make less showing ads. I'll have to compensate somehow. Maybe I'll start charging for access to make up the difference. Some people will be fine with that -- they'd rather pay more for privacy. Others won't. This kind of a solution would improve privacy. But there is still a cost.
Some people won't mind the cost. Others would rather pay by losing privacy instead. Passing laws takes away that choice from the consumer. Personally, I'd rather decide for myself than have someone make that choice for me no matter how much they think they have my interests at heart.