|
I don't expect this reply to be popular, but I thought it would be helpful to share an alternative perspective in the name of open dialogue. I am not sure what the senator intended precisely, but I think a reasonable interpretation would be the following (which I claim only as my argument, not he senator's): It is a choice to use the internet or not, just like it is a choice to purchase and eat food, purchase and live in a house, or to pursue a career and earn money. Obviously, if you want to live a long and happy life, these are good choices to make. However, each choice has a cost depending on the terms of the trade between you and the provider. You have to pay for your food and your home and come to an agreement to the terms and conditions with the seller. If you don't like the terms and conditions available, you have to choose whether you want the services bad enough to use them under the terms offered or to search for better terms offered. If in a particular real estate market, the norms for purchase terms are not what you prefer, you are free to choose to live elsewhere where more favorable terms exist (e.g. leave the Bay Area to get more affordable housing). The choice is yours. The same is true for the internet. If you want internet (which I wholeheartedly agree we all should because it offers so many life promoting and time saving benefits), then the choice is yours what ISP to use and where to live to have a pro-privacy ISP if that is a priority. Now some will say this is different because choices are limited by the ISP monopolies. I have two thoughts on this:
1. How did these become monopolies? Primarily because of government interference. Here is a quick link with more information (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-t...), but you can find much more detailed articles as well if you are curious.
2. If you don't find that compelling and believe ISPs would be "natural monopolies" without government interference, then ask yourself this... what is the meaning of telling that ISP what it can and cannot do with the data it consensually agrees to collect from customers? What is the meaning of a "right" to receiving internet without one's usage data being sold? At whose expense? The only way to enforce a right to a service someone else provides is government to force someone (the ISP) to provide their services to someone else (the consumer). If it is wrong for the ISP to consensually sell your usage data, why is it right for government to force the ISP to provide you a service with different terms than you consensually agree to? Is it right for the government to tell you what you can and cannot purchase? Is it right for you the government to tell you what you can and cannot eat? Is it right for the government to tell you what home you can and cannot purchase? I think the answer is no of course, because I think that all of these are forms of violating individuals rights: the right to voluntarily trade (as a consumer and a seller). |