At 03:51 AM 2/23/00 -0500, Allan Hunt-Badiner wrote:
>if the computer industry and ad agency networks really want to avoid
>federal regulation of data privacy, their minimum standards for true
>web privacy should include the following:
>
>1. disclosure that users are served cookies, and that having cookies
>enabled is optional with no loss in site functionality. (the non-cookie
>user would need only to type in their email address each visit)
Go to jail for writing html that someone else choses to download? How
about jail for failing to "rate" your content, while you're at it? How
about jail for passing on contraceptive info, too? Jail for not making
your page usable by the blind? I don't think so.
>it is an act of arrogance and user-unfriendliness for a company
So don't deal with them. Your local meatspace merchants will
appreciate it. Have you opted into their surveillance cams,
btw?
Speaking of arrogance,
>insist the user have cookies turned on in order to visit a site
I shut off javascript when I browse. A lot of sites
don't work at all. Guess what ---I have no right to
browse, no right to force others to generate content
that pleases me. Same with cookies, alt text, ratings, frames, or any
other 'feature'.
>given the mood of the public and the media on the growing
Since when is your perception of the "mood" of your
idea of the "public" grounds for the use of violence?
>personalization controversy, i think the only way federal regulation
>can be avoided at this point,
Is if N Korea gets a few thousand more miles range on its
rockets..
If passing unconstitutional laws were recognized as treason..
>and agrees to make personalization a OPT IN process. let's put the
>burden of action on the privacy invader, and not the privacy protector.
Lets keep government from making up new rules for communications.
If you don't like the way someone treats you, leave. Vote with your mouse,
your wallet, which *are* yours to control.
I'm all for privacy and private action, but never for coercion.
