Your argument is flawed. Consumers do NOT do things that corporations do not want. As the rules of the game stand, consumers are using services that are willingly provided by corporations in exchange for their privacy (grudgingly, or unknowingly).
This law (as I understand it) empowers consumers with the CHOICE to decide how they should pay for the services they use.
I think there is something to this argument. Although I don't believe Microsoft is free of fault, the/. community has bashed them for far too long. OTOH, Google is perceived as a white knight, when they, along with Facebook, represent the biggest threat to privacy online. The profit motive is unavoidable when shareholders expect growth. And in this sense Google has outgrown it's "don't be evil days", when it was still a small company.
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is flawed. Consumers do NOT do things that corporations do not want. As the rules of the game stand, consumers are using services that are willingly provided by corporations in exchange for their privacy (grudgingly, or unknowingly). This law (as I understand it) empowers consumers with the CHOICE to decide how they should pay for the services they use.
I think there is something to this argument. Although I don't believe Microsoft is free of fault, the /. community has bashed them for far too long. OTOH, Google is perceived as a white knight, when they, along with Facebook, represent the biggest threat to privacy online. The profit motive is unavoidable when shareholders expect growth. And in this sense Google has outgrown it's "don't be evil days", when it was still a small company.