| Nebuad When law enforcement or an individual conducts surveillance on you without cause there are repercussions - people go to jail. Why have so called 'privacy advocates' not bothered to sue these guys on exactly this basis? Could not a good lawyer simply compare this behavior to a huge listening operation pointed at every connected household in the US (to the disruption of commerce after all by slowing it down...RICO violation anyone?)?
And when told of the opt out options, could they not simply ask if that's the equivalent of hanging a huge sign on your home that says 'don't monitor me' which would be loaded with surveillance gear itself (you do opt out with a cookie after all, and who really knows what half the coding in those represents...)?
We aren't talking terrorists here; we're talking Aunt Sally looking up recipes and the huge increase in spam she'd see because of it never mind the workload going to be generated at ISPs trying to stop the ads they accepted $2.50 cents for...
I dunno bout you guys but my cost benefit analysis is comming out in the red. |
