Government regulations always have trade offs and unintended consequences. That doesn’t mean we should not have any but it does mean we should be very careful about and reluctant to make them.
We do have councils that handle and test laws on their quality and take those unintended secondhand consequences in account and they recommend modifications such as in the Netherlands you have ‘Raad vnan State’. I assume the USA has something similar.
Bigger vehicle types are less efficient so makes sense, right? Well that has led to ever larger trucks and SUVs in the U.S. since automakers can get away with being less efficient (which is hard). Bigger vehicles caused an increase in pedestrian deaths.
Overall cars are definitely more efficient, but the growth in truck/SUV size (not to mention dead pedestrians!) was never intended.
Obviously that does not mean issues slip through, obviously no system is 100% fault-free. But that is why I generally think we should not be relucatant with passing pro-privacy laws. And systems as such should definetly be improved with better checks, because many politicians propose low quality or simplistic laws.
We should have only those regulations absolutely necessary for basic public safety and no more as it invites second and third order effects. Not to mention stifling innovation as there is a reason the tech industry isn’t led by the highly regulated EU but instead the far less regulated U.S.
I do agree with you to some extent. Currently the EU aims, with its current proposals, primarily to reduce the administrative burden for smaller businesses by simplifying duplicate, unnecessary, and cumbersome administrative requirements. Such measures would defintely help and still protect consumers because safety and quality mesaures are not modified to my knowledge.
Eliminating, by law, the targeted advertising business model will end the tech sector as we know it. No streaming service, email, calendar app, etc will be available without steep subscription fees. With less money available for R&D, they will likely also have fewer features or the ‘good stuff’ will only be for people who can pay top dollar.
Contextual privacy friendly advertisements would still be allowed so I do not think that would mean the end of those industries. Companies like Spotify and Netflix would need to restructure their business model, but that would be better in my view than violating privacy.
The second and even more dire consequence of a legally mandated privacy by default is who defines “private”? What arbitrary level of privacy counts as enough? Is it a government regulator who decides? A politician? The best paid lobbyist?
That is something lawmakers decide democratically. But there are alternatives like giving a independent privacy council power to decide such measures, but that differs on your polticial approach. And I assume it is obvious but I am against lobbying in politics and think donations should be restricted alot if not banned in total. And their should be better forced transparancey and severe consequenes of taking money from lobby groups.
I support public investment in technology development and education (including about privacy!). But heavy handed attempts at controlling what is allowed in the tech market is not just anti-freedom, it’s likely to halt technological progress.
I am not in favour of banning technologies unless strictle necessary. A good example of this is the recent Tea app, such a app is not allowed in EU due to the GDPR. It is a very privacy invading app and such apps should be banned. In my view that is the opoosite of anti-freedom, because it ruins freedom for citizens by being able to be posted and doxxed on it. Generaly restrictions are preferred, but I think we differ ideologically here as you believe in optional privacy and I in default privacy for all. The stiffling of technological progress as in the EU is due to the badly written and big amount of laws which should be simplified. And also setting up companies and maintaing them often takes a long time and is frustrating comapred to other countries, that is what stiffles technological innovation in my view.
Edit: Just to be clear, privacy can be profitable too. But it’s a very different model and most people aren’t willing to pay up. Proton, Tuta, Mull, etc need people to pay subscriptions to operate. As a privacy conscience person I happily pay for privacy products. But that’s a deliberate choice I make that most people honestly won’t care enough to do.
If all services are supposed to be private then there would be more competition and those prices would lower. So I think generally it would be better all.