Google warns that opt-in privacy could lead to a 'dystopia'
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Be aware that there are many kinds of vested interest. Money is the least worrisome interest because those folks can be bought off - "true believers" are far worse.
I think the only reason so many aren't afraid now is that they don't know very much about those services and the information collected.
So the argument here is, don't tell people what we do because it might upset them.
That said, I think the point about driving people to centralized identity systems is valid, because, again, they won't understand the risks.
Interesting that there's one outcome Google does not anticipate: less mining, storing, and sharing of private data by websites.
It's complex, let's just give up with laws. Not a good stance.
Think of legislation as a script written by a committee that's then deployed with no testing. Sometimes it's the only way to solve a problem, but it's a very blunt instrument.
There's no contradiction in dreading the thought of legislators tackling a complex problem when it's not necessary, whilst accepting that there are some issues that can only be solved by passing laws.
Legislate to use less energy, to recycle, etc. But it's hardly clear cut that we're seeing anything more than a temporary heating phase.
The other point is that technology is changing so fast that by the time lawmakers understand it, things have all changed.
It's pretty clear that human activity has been significantly affecting the climate.
I know this is Wikipedia, but this article is mostly citations: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...
Because politicians do a great job, re: managing the economy, protecting social security, foreign relations, IP law, education, not inflating costs of all things medicinal, and just putting the public interest first, in general.
With such an impressive track record, why not trust them to start inching their toes into the most complex, most creative, most free entity in the history of humankind?
/facetious
I'll be among the first to question Google's motives in the long term, but in this instance, I'll take Google's obviously-self-interested stance over that of a career liar claiming to act on my behalf -- by adding yet more legislation to an already immense corpus of unintelligible jargon.
So no, I _don't_ trust politicians or any other bureaucrats to understand (or at least cogently react to) any complex subject, and I'm continually flabbergasted that so many people do.
I'll bite - name three politicians who you would trust to make medical decisions for you.
> It's complex, let's just give up with laws. Not a good stance.
The desirability of a solution with certain properties does not imply that a solution with those properties exists.