[that_guy_iain]

> Rather than throw the whole thing out because the premise was once applied poorly, the legislation could restrict the actions taken with said logs. PII and the selling and collating of said information from multiple sources stand out to me.

I would say the premise of informed consent on this scale is flawed. Informed consent means they need to be informed, to inform someone you need to teach them. There are very few people who are actually interested in learning all the stuff that is required for informed consent. And there are people who literally would never be able to give informed consent because they are not smart enough to become informed. Are these people to be deined internet access? Are we only going to allow people of a certain level of intelligence on the internet so they can be informed?

Honestly, if you asked people if they would rather be shown ads they're interested in and ads they're not interested in. With it only being a choice of one or the other and neither is not a choice, people would rather have the ads their interested in. Seems like a lot of people are trying to solve a problem for the masses that isn't a problem for the masses.

Most people don't care if a website knows they used the website, they care if their data is used to overthrow the goverment. So really, we just need to deal with the stopping it from being possible to use to overthrow the goverment.