An interesting discussion, both in and of itself, and as a microcosm of how our system works -- many different interests seeking goals for different reasons. Thanks to both, and thanks especially to Ari for his ongoing efforts in seeking to protect privacy.

If you're not, you're probably not paying close enough attention. You might be very surprised at how many sites collect info for google via google analytics and other data mining tools. Maybe they're benign, maybe not. Meanwhile, if you use Firefox, get the extension called NOSCRIPT http://noscript.net/ and stop allowing google and others from spying on you. Those still using internet explorer have no such option that I'm aware of.

Quoting zookarama: If you're not, you're probably not paying close enough attention. You might be very surprised at how many sites collect info for google via google analytics and other data mining tools. Maybe they're benign, maybe not.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that the big brother scare is overblown. As long as we have freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom to associate, etc., I'm going to consider google's data aggregation just 21st century target marketing. So if you really feel it necessary to keep other people from collecting your information, then I suppose you can add several proxies, use an anonymous email account, encrypt your data, etc. But, chances are you're just a paranoid pothead and nobody really gives a shit about your piddly crimes.

Quoting sugarkang: [...]

Personally, I feel the same way you do, SK. I have long assumed that whatever I did online could be observed and recorded by sufficiently determined others, and that doesn't particularly bother me. Similarly, I don't care who knows what I buy at the grocery store or what books I take out of the library. However, I'm awfully leery of projecting this attitude and conceding to big corporations or the government a right to spy on people in general. The preservation of privacy should be insisted upon as policy, even if my own unexciting tastes make the matter academic to me. There's a second problem, too. Whenever databases are built, some people will look to use what's been collected for unsavory purposes. While I sometimes fantasize about a better society obtaining from the end of all secrets, I really think we as a species are pretty far from being able to handle that. A third problem involves acknowledging that whenever data is collected, errors inevitably creep in. This problem is compounded by the extant mindset that says if it came out of a computer, it's gospel. One has only to look at the horror stories of people trying to deal

Quoting bjkeefe: Personally, I feel the same way you do, SK. I have long assumed that whatever I did online could be observed and recorded by sufficiently determined others, and that doesn't particularly bother me. Similarly, I don't care who knows what I buy at the grocery store or what books I take out of the library.

However, I'm awfully leery of projecting this attitude and conceding to big corporations or the government a right to spy on people in general. The preservation of privacy should be insisted upon as policy, even if my own unexciting tastes make the matter academic to me.

There's a second problem, too. Whenever databases are built, some people will look to use what's been collected for unsavory purposes. While I sometimes fantasize about a better society obtaining from the end of all secrets, I really think we as a species are pretty far from being able to handle that.

A third problem involves acknowledging that whenever data is collected, errors inevitably creep in. This problem is compounded by the extant mindset that says if it came out of a computer, it's gospel. One has only to look at the horror stories of people trying to deal

Quoting AemJeff: Everybody involved in this debate ought to consider how difficult it will be to control to whom ownership of databases containing personal data will be passed in the future.

Yes, that's a good additional argument. The persistence of stored data means potential problems that, to coin a phrase, nobody could have imagined.

Quoting AemJeff: Even if you trust Google, do you trust some Chinese Bank with Party ties after they purchase Google? (Do you think that's a hyperbolic extrapolation?)

I guess my point earlier was that whether I trust Google or not has nothing to do with it. In fact, if you get right down to it, I don't trust them. Corporations are motivated by quarterly earnings revenues. You'd be a fool to expect them to act morally. Therefore, I would trust the hypothetical Chinese Bank even less. The question is: What do you expect some nefarious corporation will do with all that sensitive information? The bigger a corporation gets, the more it has to worry about PR. The more evil they do, the more bad PR they attract. It is not in a corporation's interest to act as evil as possible. It is not motivated by goodness either. My guess is that they'll try to sell you the newest flavor of cornnuts and bottled water. I'm gonna guess that the people freaked out about all of this are the same people that were freaked out about the novel concept of "caller ID" a decade or so ago. I bet you can't

Quoting sugarkang: ...
The question is: What do you expect some nefarious corporation will do with all that sensitive information? The bigger a corporation gets, the more it has to worry about PR. The more evil they do, the more bad PR they attract. It is not in a corporation's interest to act as evil as possible. It is not motivated by goodness either. My guess is that they'll try to sell you the newest flavor of cornnuts and bottled water.

Your argument is dependent on a local view of corporations as they exist within the current political and climate in this place; and, at that, it only applies to a subset of corporations. I'd really, really not like it if say, KBR, or Blackwater had my personal data and I was a citizen of an occupied country in which either of them had a security contract. Things change. The assumptions you can make today, you won't be able to make tomorrow. Properly managed data in a big, secure network is nearly eternal.

Quoting AemJeff: I'd really, really not like it if say, KBR, or Blackwater had my personal data and I was a citizen of an occupied country in which either of them had a security contract. Things change. The assumptions you can make today, you won't be able to make tomorrow.

We could go all day about "what if" hypotheticals, and all of them could be plausible. Do you think anything can/should be done? I'm in the no camp on that one.

Quoting sugarkang: We could go all day about "what if" hypotheticals, and all of them could be plausible. Do you think anything can/should be done? I'm in the no camp on that one.

The point here isn't the particular hypothesis. It's that what doesn't seem plausible today isn't guaranteed not to seem so tomorrow. I think laws balancing rights ought generally to have a bias toward individuals. I think laws should be biased toward considering private data to be confidential. I'd support draconian laws enforcing these things, "innovation" be damned - the main exceptions being in cases where there's evidence of illegality, I'd want shields for law enforcement and journalists.

Google and Facebook are services which charge you no money BECAUSE you are trading a little personal info for their service. I don't see the problem. If there was a demand for services like this which were supported by payments by the users instead of selling user demographics, they would certainly exist. If I started a search engine which was as useful as Google and NEVER logged anything you were doing, but charged two cents per search, would you use it? Conversely, AT&T is being paid by me to provide my mobile phone service. If they were allowed to give me a free ad-supported phone which targets ads based on who I call and what I talk about, I'd probably consider it. As long as there's a contract which defines what the limits are and what kind of bargain I get for accepting looser limits (and there's a free market of other options for me) it's all good.

Watching the last five minutes of this blog, I'm struck by the observation that Ari, like the spokesperson of any consumer-advocate group, finds himself saying things like "we want X for consumers" and "we'd like to see consumers protected from Y when they use service Z." The question that really matters is, "what do the consumers want?" And the mechanism which answers it is the market. Most (not all) consumers want to watch NASCAR on TV, surf the web on their MS-Windows computers, using Google to find web sites and MySpace/Facebook to share vacation pictures with their friends. Those who prefer to watch lacrosse, use Macs, and serve their blog themselves on a Linux/Apache server in the closet have those options available as well. It's nice to have lobby groups like CDT to raise these issues and get people thinking about things like "Net Neutrality" and privacy issues, but as far as I'm concerned, the fewer top-down decisions on such matters come out of Washington, the better.

Quoting Tara Davis: Watching the last five minutes of this blog, I'm struck by the observation that Ari, like the spokesperson of any consumer-advocate group, finds himself saying things like "we want X for consumers" and "we'd like to see consumers protected from Y when they use service Z."

The question that really matters is, "what do the consumers want?"

And the mechanism which answers it is the market.

Most (not all) consumers want to watch NASCAR on TV, surf the web on their MS-Windows computers, using Google to find web sites and MySpace/Facebook to share vacation pictures with their friends.

Those who prefer to watch lacrosse, use Macs, and serve their blog themselves on a Linux/Apache server in the closet have those options available as well.

It's nice to have lobby groups like CDT to raise these issues and get people thinking about things like "Net Neutrality" and privacy issues, but as far as I'm concerned, the fewer top-down decisions on such matters come out of Washington, the better.

Although your criticism of his language choices has merit, I think he really is speaking for a lot of consumers. Certainly I heard nothing from him that I didn't like. I think it's also

Quoting Tara Davis: It's nice to have lobby groups like CDT to raise these issues and get people thinking about things like "Net Neutrality" and privacy issues, but as far as I'm concerned, the fewer top-down decisions on such matters come out of Washington, the better.

Seriously. I'm so tired of people coming in with cures that are worse than the disease.

Quoting sugarkang: Seriously. I'm so tired of people coming in with cures that are worse than the disease.

As I said to Tara, I agree that top-down approaches often cause problems. But in this case specifically, how do you see what Ari is advocating being a cure worse than a disease?

Quoting bjkeefe: As I said to Tara, I agree that top-down approaches often cause problems. But in this case specifically, how do you see what Ari is advocating being a cure worse than a disease?

I don't think he's saying that Ari in particular is proposing any specific bad "cures", so much as that the mechanisms by which lobbiests like Ari would have us promote his values would inevitably lead to government making choices for consumers which many would not have made for themselves. The best thing about government intervention in any market is that it is the fastest way to bring about changes, because it is not subject to consumer choice. The worst thing about government intervention is that it is the most likely way to bring about BAD changes, also because it is not subject to consumer choice. This is why us libertarian crackpots insist that government power over a market should be used extremely judiciously, if at all, and that such use of power should never be entered into lightly.

Quoting Tara Davis: I don't think he's saying that Ari in particular is proposing any specific bad "cures", so much as that the mechanisms by which lobbiests like Ari would have us promote his values would inevitably lead to government making choices for consumers which many would not have made for themselves.

The best thing about government intervention in any market is that it is the fastest way to bring about changes, because it is not subject to consumer choice. The worst thing about government intervention is that it is the most likely way to bring about BAD changes, also because it is not subject to consumer choice. This is why us libertarian crackpots insist that government power over a market should be used extremely judiciously, if at all, and that such use of power should never be entered into lightly.

Sorry. As with my response to sugarkang, these sweeping ideological statements do nothing to answer my question. I've already agreed with the general premise that top-down, government-directed programs can cause no end of problems. What I want to know from you and sugarkang is what, specifically, is the objection to the

Quoting bjkeefe: And again, I'll insist that the claim that consumers make the best choices in a free market is bogus. People fall for complicated and misleading pitches all the time, in particular, appeals to convenience or free goods or services in return for a non-obvious loss of privacy.

Right. People do not always make the best choices. Yes, people get suckered into bad deals all the time. Your assumption is that these people must be protected. But why not assume that consumers will seek out alternative goods and services? If a company is not satisfying the demands of its customers, a better competitor will always emerge. Microsoft? Google. RIAA? iTunes. IE? Firefox. The scariest part about liberals is their hero complex. Sure, take my money to prop up shitty American car companies that are destined to fail. Oh wait, while you're at it, why not force them to make fuel efficient cars when gas is at $2.00 a gallon. But gas prices will rise you say! The point is, a dictator will not know what the market will look like a year from now let alone five.

Now, maybe your privacy isn't that important to you, but it is to a lot

sugarkang: Wow. You're all over the place here. I find myself agreeing completely one second, and rolling my eyes the next. As I've said to you and Tara several times already, I agree with most of your general statements; here, for example:

Right. People do not always make the best choices. Yes, people get suckered into bad deals all the time. Your assumption is that these people must be protected. But why not assume that consumers will seek out alternative goods and services? If a company is not satisfying the demands of its customers, a better competitor will always emerge. Microsoft? Google. RIAA? iTunes. IE? Firefox.

and

Nothing is scarier than living under someone else's idea of perfect.

and

The true genie in the bottle is the erection of government institutions. Those are the ones that you really can't get rid of once you let them out.

But when you start with nonsense like this

The scariest part about liberals is their hero complex.

you lose me completely. This isn't just a ridiculous stereotype, it's flat-out wrong. I'll just say this: Commander Codpiece and his 90% approval ratings. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their eight-figure annual salaries. Jessica Lynch, before the truth came out. Pat Tillman, ditto. "The First Responders." Team Sarah. "Joe" the "Plumber." Ultimately, you still haven't given

tara and sugar kang, how about the safety improvements in automobiles pushed by Ralf Nader et.al. that saved millions of lives in america over the last decades and were completely resisted by the auto industry? how exactly were consumers ever going to get those morons to add safety features without government action? how will the "free market" save us when its not free to get into the market, companies collude and conspire, consumers do not have enough information to make "rational" choices and geniuses spend their lives trying to get you to make bad choices (ad agencies)? Libertarians need to become aware of the abuses of private power as well as the abuses of public power.

Quoting bjkeefe: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and their eight-figure annual salaries. Jessica Lynch, before the truth came out. Pat Tillman, ditto. "The First Responders." Team Sarah. "Joe" the "Plumber."

Why cite these people? I hate them too. I don't spend any time railing on them because they are not influential on this board.

Ultimately, you still haven't given me any specific reason why you have such a problem with Ari's advocacy for more stringent online privacy regulations. I don't see how the laws he seeks equate to "institutions." Just calling Net Neutrality a bogeyman and telling me to "STOP TRIPPIN" is the furthest thing from substantive, let alone persuasive.

If AT&T starts doing a tiered pricing plan where I have to pay $20 more to access certain sites like wikipedia, youtube, nytimes, etc., I'll simply discontinue my service and sign up with Cox Cable. So will everybody else. It's a business disaster that not even an idiot would decide to do. Companies have an economic incentive to provide the most amount of people with the best service. Bandwidth throttling for bittorrent is quite different from blocking access. Any time you cripple a part of your service, that leaves an opening for the competition to fill. Once you start regulating the

Quoting popcorn_karate: how exactly were consumers ever going to get those morons to add safety features without government action?

I'd suggest not making us libertarians to be these caricatures in your mind and actually try and learn about your adversaries. Like I said before, government is not 100% evil. The question is, do we need it? For example, a big selling feature of cars is its safety. We have consumer ratings for safety. For the sake of making the most money, car companies will make their cars safe. If car companies want to make safe cars because that leads to more money, how much regulation do we need? Is regulation unnecessary? No, of course not. I just don't believe that we need it as much as liberals think we need it. The best regulations are done socially, imo. People smoke less because it's just socially unacceptable now, not because it's illegal.

how will the "free market" save us when its not free to get into the market, companies collude and conspire, consumers do not have enough information to make "rational" choices and geniuses spend their lives trying to get you to make bad choices (ad agencies)?

Couple points: 1. Do not confuse our

Quoting sugarkang: Why cite these people? I hate them too. I don't spend any time railing on them because they are not influential on this board.

I wasn't saying that they were necessarily your heroes. They were counterexamples to rebut your earlier assertion:

Quoting sugarkang: The scariest part about liberals is their hero complex.

Back to your latest:

If AT&T starts doing a tiered pricing plan where I have to pay $20 more to access certain sites like wikipedia, youtube, nytimes, etc., I'll simply discontinue my service and sign up with Cox Cable. So will everybody else. It's a business disaster that not even an idiot would decide to do. Companies have an economic incentive to provide the most amount of people with the best service. Bandwidth throttling for bittorrent is quite different from blocking access. Any time you cripple a part of your service, that leaves an opening for the competition to fill.

Okay, thanks for at least taking a stab at some specifics. I don't see what this has to do with privacy concerns, though, which is what I understood to be Ari's principle focus. [Added: Or maybe more precisely, that was the part of his work I was asking you to address.] I'm not sure how worthwhile it is to get into a debate about Net Neutrality with you, partly because

Quoting sugarkang: I'd suggest not making us libertarians to be these caricatures in your mind and actually try and learn about your adversaries.

Be nice if you did the same for liberals. Just sayin'. You make a lot of sweeping and stereotypical generalizations yourself.

Quoting bjkeefe: Also, as I understand Net Neutrality, it's all about telling companies what they can't do to consumers, which means your general worry about "MADD, PETA, GREENPEACE, et al." rushing in to pile on more mysterious and unnamed regulations doesn't follow.

As I mentioned before, I have no problem with net neutrality. In fact, I support it in principle. My arguments against it were:
1. we don't need it because it's not in the financial interests of companies to deprive us of certain sites. It's business suicide.
2. if net neutrality gets passed, someone else will try to push some other "noble" regulations. e.g., limiting access to adult websites in the interest of protecting the impressionable minds of young children. We're all screwed once the trojan horse gets in. It won't be China blocks the New York Times but America blocks the New York Times. If liberals can understand the objections to pre-emptive war, they should also object to pre-emptive regulations.

Be nice if you did the same for liberals.
Just sayin'. You make a lot of sweeping and stereotypical generalizations yourself.

I criticize liberal positions. I never once said that everything you believed in represented the prototypical liberal. The original charge confused us "free market libertarians" with "free

Quoting sugarkang: As I mentioned before, I have no problem with net neutrality. In fact, I support it in principle.

Sorry that it didn't stick in my memory. I thought you were against it.

My arguments against it were:
1. we don't need it because it's not in the financial interests of companies to deprive us of certain sites. It's business suicide.

I don't agree, because I don't think there are enough options for consumers. What is someone supposed to do if, say, Disney strikes a deal with the major cable companies to give their streams preference? DSL is the only other realistic option for most people, and it's not available in a lot of places, and what is available is often barely qualified to be called broadband. Also, what if the deal is done between a content provider and those who run the backbones; i.e., not at the ISP level? How does a consumer make a choice to deal with that? Or what happens if Disney makes a deal with both Cox and AT&T in your area? Another objection: What leverage does a small audience for a niche site have, if that niche site gets put in the slow lane? Even in a much freer market than

Quoting bjkeefe: Or what happens if Disney makes a deal with both Cox and AT&T in your area?

This is precisely my point. It is not me dealing in fear mongering, it is you. What basis do you have for thinking that Disney will make a deal with Cox and AT&T in my area? I already gave you the reason why it won't happen. In fact, my argument is far more plausible than yours because it is based on the corporation's self-interest. Why do you and other liberals buy into this EVIL corporation assumption? Corporations are motivated by money, not evil. They just happen to do evil on the path to profit. Not even close to the same thing. Do you think that the customers are going to take that shit lying down? People may be sheeple, but not in the way that you seem to think.

I flat out reject this. This is just fear-mongering.

reject it all you want. I already stated my case.

(Just so we're clear, I'm opposed to things like requiring that adult content be filtered, at the ISP level or wherever up the line.

Once government gets involved, it's impossible to get rid of. Your opinion is not

Quoting sugarkang: Thanks for the fresh start, moderator.

I'm sorry you can't deal with the frustration of having someone disagree with you, but couldn't you find any way to express it less lame than to repeat a lie you already acknowledged is a lie?

Quoting sugarkang:

Quoting AemJeff: I'm sure Brendan is getting tired of repeating it, so I'll say it this time. "Moderator" status here has no editorial implication on this forum, beyond enabling the purely mechanical task of deleting commercial spam.

Fair enough.

You've got some growing up to do, sugar.

Quoting bjkeefe: You've got some growing up to do, sugar.

In several instances, you attacked the person, not the argument.
I could respond in kind, but I won't.
I made my case for why net neutrality isn't as good as it purports to be.
I'll just leave it at that.

Quoting sugarkang: In several instances, you attacked the person, not the argument.
I could respond in kind, but I won't.
I made my case for why net neutrality isn't as good as it purports to be.
I'll just leave it at that.

This is sufficient justification for you to repeat a lie? That was itself a personal attack on top of everything else? And especially when you're no better yourself about sticking to the ideas? Ooooooo-kay.

Quoting bjkeefe: This is sufficient justification for you to repeat a lie?

What is this "lie" you speak of? I'm sorry I didn't address this earlier. I just didn't know what you were talking about.

Quoting sugarkang: What is this "lie" you speak of? I'm sorry I didn't address this earlier. I just didn't know what you were talking about.

You have suggested several times that there is something editorial or otherwise distinctive about me being a Moderator on this board, and that it has bearing on what I or others post. This is not true -- I have that vBulletin privilege solely to delete spam. You have been corrected each time you have said this, as has Lyle in a thread I know you were reading (since you jumped into it), as have others. You have even acknowledged it at least once previously, as I quoted earlier in this thread. The first time was an honest mistake, maybe, although I suspect you saw an even earlier correction I made in response to kidneystones. (How else would you have known in the first place that I was a Moderator?). Even letting that one go, though, you have no call to keep making this insinuation.

Quoting bjkeefe: (How else would you have known in the first place that I was a Moderator?). Even letting that one go, though, you have no call to keep making this insinuation.

1. OMFG, are you still on about this?
2. Don't go and say my claims are "too asinine to respond to" and act as if you've kept the discourse civilized. No, you made a substantive argument right? You love these technicalities. You and Bill Clinton should have a discussion about what the definition of "is" is.
3. Maybe you genuinely don't realize how you have a tendency to just piss on people. Even your homegirl Lemon called you out on it. Take a hint from your teammate.
4. It says on the bottom of the main forum page that there are FOUR moderators. Tada.
5. I'm done with you. Just assume that if I don't reply, that you won, made your point, had better logic, or whatever term of art pleases you.

Quoting sugarkang: 1. OMFG, are you still on about this?

Yes. I don't like lies, and I especially don't like lies about this site and my relationship to it.

2. Don't go and say my claims are "too asinine to respond to" and act as if you've kept the discourse civilized.

I'm sorry, but saying:

Quoting sugarkang: It won't be China blocks the New York Times but America blocks the New York Times.

to support an argument against Net Neutrality is asinine. Perhaps you think this is too close to "ass," and aren't sure of the definition? There is a difference between uncivilized discourse and just expressing impatience with a ridiculous idea.

3. Maybe you genuinely don't realize how you have a tendency to just piss on people. Even your homegirl Lemon called you out on it. Take a hint from your teammate.

Uh-oh, I smell a major "Mom, they're all ganging up on me!" snivelfest about to erupt. But yeah. I realize. When provoked, I do tend to get a little sharp or sarcastic or dismissive or whatever. Sorry it upsets you so much. Part of the price of shooting your mouth off online is that sometimes people shoot back.

4. It says on the bottom of the main