We fully agree with public officials and public interest groups that the Internet is a robust technology that helps democratize access to information and thereby empower individuals. That is the very nature of the Internet. We also agree that privacy, security, protection against fraud, and protection of children are essential elements of the public's interest in the Internet. The disconnect occurs when some call for government to promote these goals by seeking to directly apply its powers to regulate rather than working to enhance the power of individual users to make informed choices. At the least, before pursuing the proscriptive route, government should compare the likely outcomes of a system that relies on regulations versus one that focuses on enhancing an individual's access to decision-critical information.
Government certainly does have a role beyond promoting consumer education.
In the privacy context, we do support government setting limits on the distribution of some types of sensitive personal information, such as financial and medical records. And, when companies advertise falsely, commit fraud, or otherwise fail to meet representations made to consumers on the Internet such as by using personal information for purposes not disclosed when the information was collected government should have the tools to seek redress and use them. Yet, these same data collection practices have existed for years in the off-line world, and computerization is helping them to become increasingly sophisticated. If there are to be new regulations, they should not target the medium they should target the problem. They should be neutral.