[nitrogen]

It is the epiotome of arrogance to serve your own interests by trampling those of others, regardless of how annoying you find their demographic to be. By this attitude, 17 year olds are perfectly within their rights to say "their privacy is of little concern to me" about your age group, and act accordingly.

[Roboprog]

sorry, didn't mean it in a "racist" or "doesn't affect me" kind of way, just that they are minor children, and will thank the adults later for taking care of their long term interests.

[barry-cotter]

I'm 28, but on behalf of all those who are legally powerless and who have other people 'looking after their longterm best interests' we'd prefer you didn't.

[Roboprog]

Yeah, I get that from one of my teenage daughters, as well. Alas, it's the one who most needs to listen up.

At 28, you darn well better be taking care of yourself. However, I suspect you have not had to deal with adolescent children yet.

[nitrogen]

It's one thing to take care of your own children. It's entirely another to change the law to "take care of" everyone else's. The second requires far greater justification and consent from those who would be affected by the law (those 17 year olds who are a year away from voting, for example).

[nitrogen]

Perhaps, but I'd wager that the copyright lobby uses the same justification for their own anti-consumer actions.

I believe one must be careful not to use the same means, even though improving the privacy of Facebook users and non-users alike is a worthy end.