They do provide rights like a right to be forgotten from the internet and prevent people unwillingly posting photo’s of you on the internet for example. But there definitely is room for improvement on enforcement and making it easier to report violations in my opinion. And due to the lack of enfocement a adblock and VPN does often help a lot, I think that a strong combination of both would be best. But it would be best we would need a adblock at all and have the internet be usable and work in a privacy friendly way without trackers and privacy invading ads.
Ok I think I can support this if the point is to provide public investment in privacy friendly open source projects. The wording in your OP made me think you were advocating to ban email/SMS. Providing investment for alternatives is definitely something that is all win.
It is already proposed by some to invest in open source like the EU’s Sovereign Tech Fund proposal. So that is quite nice.
LinkedIn, WhatsApp, Google, etc provide services people find valuable. That is why they are so popular. Privacy focused alternatives, as far as they can exist (I don’t think a private LinkedIn could work), can gain marketshare if they work well. Signal is continuing to gain popularity as is Proton. But I do not want the government mandating what services we can and cannot use or how private companies can do business with willing customers.
That is were we disagree ideologically. Because I think privacy invading services like WhatsApp should not be able to exist. And they need to minimize the data they collect and share to the minimum for functionality through regulations. But I understand and respect your point of view from a freedom standpoint.
Optional for those who want it. We really like private options because we are privacy advocates. But not everyone is. Banning products and services because they do not meet an arbitrary level of “privacy by default” is dystopian and begging for abuse. Who gets to decide what counts as “private” or not?
From my point of view not regulating it results in many unknowing people (e.g. elders and the socialeconomically disinfranchised) losing their privacy. So I am curious that if your government went with your approach if you would support funding education on privacy and cybersceurity for certain people or if you think another method is better? What abuse could you see with such privacy by default, do you mean that the government could change the legaslative laws to make it anti-privacy like requiring ID’s easier?
If someone likes using Instagram with full knowledge of the privacy implications, why should the government stop them?
Yes banning it would not be good, but regulating it to minimze data collection and data sharing as much as possible could not hurt any users (except advertisers I guess).
Freedom means actually being free to make choices even if you do not like the choices other people make with their freedom.
I understand your view, but I think having privacy grants everyone more freedom.