Today the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a major case pitting privacy advocates against media companies. By any measure, Salazar v. Paramount Global is a blockbuster case in the making. At issue is the use of viewing habits by companies offering free subscriptions and material to the public. These companies make money by then using that history for tailored marketing programs. Michael Salazar is arguing that a Blockbuster-era law should prevent such sharing of his viewing history, a ruling that would have a massive impact on media and entertainment companies.
Salazar involves a law passed 40 years ago after a controversy during the confirmation hearings of Robert Bork, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. The press and pundits unleashed an unrelenting campaign against the conservative, including the Washington City Paper releasing his list of 146 movies rented from a video store. Congress moved to stop the abuse and passed the Video Privacy Protection Act to bar such disclosures.
Now, Michael Salazar is arguing that his free digital subscription for 247Sports.com, which is owned by Paramount Global, should also prevent the company from sharing his viewing habits with marketers. The case could have sweeping impacts on media and entertainment companies, which make much of their revenue through tailored marketing pitches based on such information.
The Video Privacy Protection Act (“VPPA”) bars a “video tape service provider” from “knowingly disclos[ing], to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider.” 18 U.S.C. § 2710(b)(1). A “consumer” defined as a “subscriber of goods or services from a video tape service provider.” Id. § 2710(a)(1). The act further defines “personally identifiable information” as including information that “identifies a person as having requested or obtained specific video materials or services from a video tape service provider.” Id. § 2710(a)(3).
On one level, the spirit of the Act is to protect the privacy of citizens in watch they choose to watch in their private lives. That is why privacy groups have rallied around the case. According to polls, over seven in ten Americans have concerns that they have little to no control over what companies do with their data.
Conversely, the companies argue that this is a free service and that marketing is how these companies make such material available without charge to the public.
Paramount is arguing for a narrow construction of the statute. It notes that “consumer” is a “renter, purchaser, or subscriber of goods or services” from a “video tape service provider.” 18 U.S.C. 2710(a)(1). It argues that Salazar is not a “consumer” because he did not “rent[], purchase[], or subscribe[]” to the delivery of any “video cassette tapes or similar audio visual materials.” 18 U.S.C. 2710(a)(1) and (4).
Salazar insists that he did subscribe when he signed up for a free, written email newsletter. However, the company argues that the newsletter is not a “video cassette tape[] or similar audio visual material[],” ibid., so he is not a “consumer” under the statute.
It is portraying the case as a distortion of a now dated law: “The VPPA is a Blockbuster-era statute barring the non-consensual disclosure by video rental stores of the rental history of individual patrons. Salazar seeks to transmogrify it into a prohibition against targeted advertising on the Internet.”
Like many sites, 247Sports allows access outside of a paywall by making revenue through advertising. While many consumers do not like their viewing history shared, they also do not like the increasing costs of having to pay for access to games and videos. It is a tradeoff that the lower courts felt was permissible in rejecting Salazar’s claims.
This is a tough case of statutory interpretation in seeking to apply an older statute to new media conditions and practices.
Courts have found various flaws in Salazar’s claims ranging from claiming to be a “consumer” within the meaning of the VPPA to whether Paramount is a “video tape service provider” or whether the information is “personally identifiable.”
If subscribing to a free newsletter is the same as subscribing to actual audiovisual content, the case could deliver a massive blow to media revenue streams.
Ultimately, Congress could step in to tweak the law if the Court rules for Salazar. When the Court accepts a case, there is a higher likelihood that it will reverse the underlying opinion. However, it only takes four justices to accept a case and this Court tends to narrowly construe such laws. The countervailing issue here is that the Act was designed with the stated purpose of protecting privacy.
I teach “legisprudence” theories in my torts and Supreme Court classes in how courts interpret statutes with “gaps” or “ambiguities.”
Some would argue that a court should gravitate toward the narrow textual meaning given the sweeping impact of a broader interpretation. Figures such as Judge Frank Easterbrook argued for upholding the “deal” of legislation in strictly interpreting such laws by not gap-filling. Instead, the court can leave it to Congress to resolve ambiguities as the branch accountable to voters.
Another approach, advocated by Professor Jonathan Macey, would apply the “public-regarding purpose” of the law — fill in the gap or ambiguity by reference to the stated “public-regarding purpose” of the law. In this case, the public-regarding purpose is privacy.
The Court often gets sticker shock in adopting broader interpretations that could impact whole industries in such a transformative way. It much prefers to defer to Congress on such trade-offs. Yet, rather than letting the Sixth Circuit opinion in favor of Paramount stand, four justices decided that they wanted to deal with this question. It could prove to be a close case.
Isn’t the Salazar case really about apples and oranges? The law passed 40 years ago was about a customer’s paid rental history being released to the public against without that customer’s consent, while Salazar was enjoying a free, unpaid service and his viewing history was being shared with marketers rather than the public, and said viewing history helps the marketers know how to advertise back to Salazar and also lets them know in general how or what to market to the public. Two very different situations. The 40-year old law should have no bearing on Salazar’s case. And if Salazar consented to a use agreement that permitted 247Sports to share his viewing history with marketers, then he also should have no case. Whether he has any case at all should rely on whether or not 247Sports acted in accordance with that agreement. Of course, many online users of free services never bother to read use agreements. They just click “accept” and start viewing the content.
This is inane. Where the —- has the Supreme Court been for 250 years? Clearly Americans enjoy a strong constitutional right to privacy—to be secure—regarding their bodies, their minds, their property, etc. The first concern in all cases must be the rights of American individuals, not, for example, the right of enterprises to market the personal data of those free individuals.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…shall not be violated,….
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
Whatever the law is or is not the non-conservatives will say its mass polling. The agenda must keep the lines of propaganda open free flowing.
Another day, another instance of Satanic mischief.
Traditionally, Satan is depicted as being red.
On the color spectrum, orange is near red.
Lame!
It is brilliant.
Given that for most “free” internet services, one has to sign off on some agreement and privacy disclosure as a condition for use (which probably most people, and certainly including me, do not give much more than a perfunctory glance), it would be hard for Michael Salazar to argue that he was not given the opportunity to be informed about the use of information collected about himself.
A.N.: I agree. In Para 65 of the class action, petitioner Salazar, et al., acknowledges that he was provided an opt-out option under 18 U.S.C. § 2710(2)(B)(iii) (esoterically and exclusively for video tape rental services).
I can recall a time (a good number of years ago) when I provided my email address to (oddly enough) a security service. Within 24 hours but mostly over the next month we were bombarded with advertisements from multiple companies, not only for security products and services, but shopping sites in general. -And not only through emails, but also home phone and hard mail.
When I attempted to inquire as to how these advertisers got my email address, it was 100% “I dunno” in response, irrespective of how far up the ladder I went. One entity authoritatively advised that it could be the mailman who was selling our addresses, ha ha!
We are reminded that AI technology (AI routing) has now invaded home security systems and all sorts of other personal info, — through—you guessed it—- “smart home appliances,” including refrigerators and microwaves, let alone baby room monitors and televisions with built-in cameras. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-025-02182-4 Forget the old “castle doctrine!” Now everyone knows we are hosting a get-together Saturday night!
Every time we engage in opening a new link on our devices to access news/information, there is an “opt-out” Privacy Policy Notice attached.
But why is the burden on US to affirmatively opt out? I dunno.
(actually, I do know. My rhetorical sentence was emphatically meant to trigger thought.)
The Court should not broaden the scope of a narrowly tailored law. Subscription-based newsletters existed in the 80s, and Congress did not intend the statute to apply to them.
Textualism should win the day, but none of the Justices routinely apply the same principles to every case, so I expect the Opinion to solely be driven by the desired ends of the conservative majority rather than the text of the statute.
The swine cannot appreciate my pearls. They never will. Why bother?
Excellent article of the pros and cons. I think I side on punting to Congress.
The bork law should have been declared unconstitutional
Contracts per the contract clause in the constitution are between two private parties-the role of govenrent is to adjudicate desputes and enforce them.
If you want privacy – pay for the service and demand a contract that provides that
Jbsay,
I like your suggestion. Please tell me what companies I can contract with, that will provide me with internet searching, shopping, and news … and will promise in writing to protect my privacy.
If there is a real demand for that in the market – then the market will deliver.
your getting all these services for free. Would you pay if they protected your privacy ?
Would you quit using any if they did not ?
The market delivers what you want based on how important a prefence is too you – i.e. will you pay for it and how much ?
With what we are discussing right now – as someone once said – if you are getting something for free – you are the product, not the consumer.
If you are getting a variety of services for free – it is those services selling information about you and your preferences that is paying for the service.
Free markets are not utopian. They do not give you anything you want.
What they do is get US to rank our preferences and pay for the things we actually want most.
The more productive we are – the more of what we want we can pay for AND the less it costs.
I personally have only one concern here – that is government.
Just because GM can buy information about my viewing, does not mean that law enforcement should be able to obtain it without a warrant.
This is an error the courts made long ago – the FACT that private information about you has been shared with others whom you have some kind of business relationship with – does NOT make that information public.
If I run naked through the town square with a banner saying FU – i have no privacy interest.
If I browse for things on Amazon – government needs a warrant for that information.
If I do not want Amazon to sell the information – I can buy directly from local stores that are too busy selling me a shovel to sell GM my buying habits.
You do not need to find a service that will agree not to sell your data, you just need to find one where you are not the product that is sufficiently small that selling your data is not worth the effort for them.
So I am clear, you do NOT have a right to a service that does not sell your data.
But you do have the right to choose who you will and will not do business with.
If no one offers you what you want – either accept that you can not get everything you want,
or do nothing at all – don’t buy ore do not buy from services that sell your data.
If you want a dog food on amazon – how important is it that they do not sell your data ?
If it is truly important – do not buy through amazon.
Or do not buy at all.
John Say,
You solution to lack of privacy is “If no one offers you what you want (including privacy) — either accept that you can not get everything you want, or do nothing at all”.
In 2026 America, “do nothing at all” means never go online to use email, to do an internet search, to use social media, to subscribe to any sports or news, to buy anything, or to do banking. Just food for thought …
“Michael Salazar is arguing that . . .” (JT)
He filed the exact same bogus, class-action, rent-seeking lawsuit against the NBA.
Got proof?
When Democrats when bigly in November, they will have Trump to thank. Ha! Ha! Ha!
Yes, communism and Islam are sure election winners in the USA.
There is no prediction they will “Win biggly”
at worst they will win at the low end of mid term norms
Anything short of picking up seats in the senate and 50-80 seats in the house would be at the low end of normal midterms
Despite the media hype – it remains an open question whether Democrat will gain ANYTHING
Maybe this is the first selection in 20 years where the polls are actually correct- but historically polls have skewed 3-5 points in favor of democrats- if that is the case – democrats are in serious trouble
Historically low turn out favors the party out of power and so far early and mail-in voting turnout is very low which favors democrats but also establish that the election is not really a reflection of much of anything
However since 2020 early turnout is proving more a measure of democrat strength
If that is the case this election could be historically good for republicans
Democrats vote early and particularly by mail.
Republicans vote on election day
Increasingly low early voting means democrat weakness.
Finally in DEMOCRAT primaries polling has been off by 10-20 pts
BOTH parties portray this as the most important election ever.
It is NOT
The primary impact on the next 2 years will be whether congress will focus on lawfare against the president.
That is it. Under no circumstances will democrats have the power to legislate.
They will not be able to override a veto.
Further they have no platform.Which means they will have no mandate
Deportations – which contra the left are actually popular will continue.
Tarriffs will continue.
The conflict with Iran will continue until Iran falls or capitulates.
Regardless gas prices will drop – the laws of supply and demand are immutable
You will have to be my French maid for a month when you are proven wrong.
Because you say so ?
I am reading the tea leaves just like everyone else.
I do not profess to be an expert in political predictions.
But I have done better than the polls and most of the experts.
Maybe I am lucky.
Maybe this time I am wrong.
In fact the odds are EXCELLENT that absolutely no one perfectly predicts this election.
So If You get a SINGLE prediction wrong are you wearing the french maid outfit ?
What do YOU think the odds YOUR predictions are entirely right are ?
Predicting elections is NOT the same as evaluating the news – but it is closely related.
Were you right about the collusion delusion ?
The Hunter Biden laptop ?
Joe Bidens years long dimensia ?
Anything about Covid ?
If you are frequently unable to take the information available and evalutate it and calculate the probability that some claim is true, it is not likely you can do better judging elections.
There are lots of unknowns and lots of contradictory information.
We are not going to know which information is truly important until the actual election.
I have noted that for just about every election in the past 20 years the pools have overstated Democrats by +3-5 in nearly ever election. If that is also true of this election – there is no blue wave and there may be a blue fizzle.
It is not outside the realm of possibility that Republicans keep the house. I am not betting money on that.
And honestly I do not care much.
If Republicans narrowly manage to hold on – nothing of consequence will happen legislatively in the next 2 years. If Republcians lose the house – nothing of consequence will happen legislatively in the next 2 years.
Contra both parties – this election is NOT all that important.
It is likely better for republicans if Democrats narrowly take the house. House democrats can be counted on to make fools of themselves.
Further the more they go after Trump and republicans – the more DOJ and FBI and DHS can go after democrats.
To the extent anything about this election is important – it is the senate and that is really only with respect to judicial confirmations.
Nothing else about this election matters.
Even if Democrats do well – and it is highly unlikely they actually lose seats on net, that says nothing about 2028.
All the long term trends are going republican. The GOP is out registering voters almost everywhere – and has been for a long time. Most GOP policies have supermajority public support. Most democrat policies have none.
Peter Theil claimed we hit peak woke in 2020 – and I think he is correct. We are in the midst of the democrats slide into oblivion. That does not mean they will lose everything all the time everywhere. It just means the trends are away from democrats.
You constantly say that Trump is hated – that is nonsense. By alot – not a majority, he is beloved,
He is 5 times as popular amoung republicans as reagan and 10 times as popular as lincoln.
But overall people do NOT like the chaos. While at the same time wanting the goals that the chaos is attempting to accomplish.
I watched bits of a debate between Lauren Bobert and her challenger – a former Navy Admiral and former republican. On policies the differences were TINY.
People WANT most of the things Trump is trying to accomplish – but they want them accomplished less brashly or loudly or with less conflcit. Boberts Democrat oponent was selling EXACTLY that.
Sounds good. But what is reality ?
Is the massive trade deficit going to be brought down by Trump threatening all our trading partners with a US that is as protectionist as Europe, Canada, Mexico, and China are ? Or by smaller and more carefully crafted tariffs ? Outside the far left NO ONE is sayin “no tariffs” today.
Regardless tweaking our foreign exchange is going to have tiny effects – if that is what you want – fine.
But if you want big changes – you must go big and that is more chaotic and produces more conflict.
Almost no one is happy about the conflict in Iran – but EVERYONE wants the same thing – a non-nuclear Iran that is not destabalizing trade or the region.
Biden and Obama tried to get there through negotiations. The result was Iran with enough enriched uranium to produce 11 Hiroshima Bombs in a few weeks. Iran has admitted they had that much.
How do you think things in the Mideast would be going if Iran had nukes ?
People do not want this war. They also do not want a nuclear Iran.
As the rolling stones said
You can’t always get what you want. But if you try, sometimes you get what you need.
What the majority of americans want – what got Trump elected – possibly 3 times, and would easily get him elected in 2028 if that was constitutional, requires the chaos that is trump to get.
Trump is bringing about “a new world order” – one that the majority of americans want.
But not the one the left has been working towards for decades.
I will make the prediction —- Dems will win big. I don’t like saying that, but I think Trump fatigue is setting in even among people who have supported him, and it will show in November.
Everyone in creation is making predictions.
I think it is highly unlikely the democrats “win big” – but they likely will take the house and win some seats in the Senate.
Is Trump fatigue real – absolutely.
The american people want things that are impossible and arguably correctly beleive Trump promised them that.
To me the REAL trump fatigue is do they still support Trump when it is clear that much of what he promised is still possible, but it harder and more painful than expected. The evidence – from the same polsters that claim this election will be a wipe out is that “Trump fatigue” is NOT the same as abandoning the goals Trump promised because they are harder than expected.
We keep hearing from those on the left that Trumps polls are tanking – but that is false. From the start of 2026 to right now Trump bounces between 41 and 48 nearly as steadily as a pendulum.
Throughout 2014 Obama’s approval averaged 42% – that is 2-3pts lower than Trump.
Biden’s approval in Nov 2022 was also 42%.
People do not want high gas prices, They do not want this war, They do not want the periodic ICE shootings, They do not want the constant chaos that is the Trump administration.
But they DO want fairer trade. They do want peace in the mideast, they do want mass deportations.
What people want is magic. Are people disappointed that what they wanted was harder than promised ?
Sure.
The big question is – have they changed what they wanted ?
I think anyone trying to say the answer is yes is nuts.
Thanks for the reply. My fatigue comes from his constant focus on extraneous issues like ballrooms, renaming stuff, and tit for tat lawfare, and ignoring his # 2 promise in 2024, to bring prices down. He hammered Joe and Kamala about inflation and complained about wars of choice —- and now is bogged down in one that has resulted in a near doubling of gas prices. Gas prices are a totem for inflation in that we all see them posted on every street corner and are therefore reminded of it on a daily basis. As energy costs impact the cost of EVERYTHING it is a huge issue. It is easy to feel betrayed and more difficult to defend the Prez and the party that largely walks in lockstep with him. Make no mistake about it. I see the Dems as a serious threat to the principles I believe in and will vote for anyone who opposes them. But elections in this country are close. A change of 5% is all it takes for a so-called wave election. I hope I am wrong but I see the tsunami approaching.
garyesq2k2
I am also more intertested in long term trends.
It appears likely that in the LONG run NC and GA are going to flip blue.
Democrats dream of flipping TX blue – but even if Talerico wins – which I doubt, TX is not actually trending blue.
It is a pink state not a red state, I may occasional elect a democrat – but 3 decades of trying to flip TX have failed
Brown may win in OH – but OH has flipped blue to red. It is not a swing state anymore. Like TX Democrats might occasionally win a state wide election – but OH is red.
PA and Michigan are flipping red. I doubt democrats win a presidential election in PA or MI for a decade.
But as they flip blue to red – they will win fewer and fewer state-wide elections.
Minnesota is not flipping red tomorow – but it too is slowly flipping red, and that is a surprise.
WA and OR are a mass but I suspect that in a few more cycles they will be swing states.
The same is true of NY.
NH is now a purple state – it mostly elects democrats, but Republicans can win state wide in NH.
Not covered much by the News – but OR and IL practically have Red/blue civil wars going on.
While both are blue states very large parts of both states are DEEP RED.
Those are my state by state predictions for the future.
This election is hinting at all of that, But that does not mean all or most of what I state above will having in 2026. Only that it is happening.
At some point democrats have a reckoning coming.
Contra most of us here – political parties are not really about ideology, they are about power.
Parties talk about big tents – but they really want the smallest coalition that reliably wins.
Further parties care about ideology ONLY as the means to win.
That does not mean that many of those in the party are not ideologues.
The far left of the Democratic party would be perfectly happy to shove everyone that is not on the far left out of the party. Even if that means a loss of power, But the far left beleives it can browbeat everyone into submission gain power without ever really having to adjust their views to appeal to a majority.
But outside the far left – policitcal parties as I said do not care so much about ideology as much as power.
The democratic party is steadily losing ground. That will be true even if they “win” this election
Democrats are losing ground with minorities bit by bit in each election.
They are losing ground with men
They are losing ground with the working class.
They are even losing ground with married women.
The only area they are gaining is white young highly educated people who are otherwise failing at life – mostly women.
These are not sustainable trends.
Ruy Tiexiera the same guy who decades ago predicted a permanent democratic majority based on the growing minority electorate is practically screaming at democrats that they have blown it and are themselves rapidly becoming the party of the white elite minority.
This is NOT likely to continue forever – frankly democrats should have shifted after they lost the 2016 election.
Regardless at SOME point in the future The democratic party is going to make changes to thwart the slow hemoraging voters. The fact that democrats have waited so long – possibly too long means their time in the wilderness will likely be longer and more painful. If democrats split with the far left – they can not win nationwide. If they do not – they can not win nationwide.
The far left still beleives they are winning the entire country – you can see that from left wing nut posters here everyday. But they are not.
No matter what happens in this election – which is far less consequential that most anyone on either side will admit, the long term trends are away from the left.
This is a tough one. I do not like my name and information shared and am very hard on what I allow to be tracked. Yet, I am not one for paying either. There is just too much and too many sites to afford it all.
Still, it feels like a game is being played when my information is shared among those I have zero idea about or desire to do business. I love the idea of a business relationship with some third party I have no thought about because my original free site sold my information to them and because the third party has a relationship with them and I have a relationship with the free site, the third party claims we now have a relationship and they get too pester me.
I do understand nothing is free, but I also understand it is my personal information too. I am old enough to understand the Robert Bork mess. Think of modern doxxing. It was wrong then and wrong now. This is the real lesson and it is about privacy.
Companies need to make money to survive, but they should not be allowed to run wild either. I think this one is fixable.
I would say Congress can tweak this one, but Congress cannot seem to tie their own shoes right now, so the courts will probably have to step in for now at least. I can only hope the scales balance in this case.
I wish Justice Kavanaugh had given consideration to the impact on college football before he created the chaos that exists today. I wish Kustice Blackmon had considered the broader ramifications when he drafted Rove v Wade. Society would be better had they done so.
WRT the right to privacy I am more concerned with the encroachment from government than private concerns. As we have witnessed, our government’s enormous power held in the wrong hangs can be turned against individuals or whole segments of the citizenry for nefarious purposes. The recent debates regarding flock cameras troubles me. In the right hands, it can be an obvious benefit to law enforcement and public security. The problem arises when control of the technology changes hands to a party who doesn’t recognize boundaries. I have a few subscriptions which I value and expect the price of admission to be some junk mail which I can deal with. My hyper skepticism protects me from scams so far.
Jake Paul should read “Indispensable Right”.
Participating in democracy is a full time job.
I would love it if these CEOs and Silicon Valley goons got their a$$es handed to them. Web 2.0 tech companies are the devil, and entirely antithetical to why the WWW was created in the first place. The AI companies have somehow taken that model of insidiousness and made it into an art form, and they do not give two effs about the harm done. None of these people are well. This needed to happen 20 years ago, and their (the tech companies) immunity needs to be revoked, IMO.
James -= I would just flush Defamation laws – they are ineffective, they resmble the lottery more than anything rational. People lose who shoudl win, win who should lose and it is all just a mess.
Punish people for lies in the free market – that may not work perfectly but it works better and it is not arbitrary and capricious.
Eliminate defamation and Tech immuniuty is no longer an issue.
Again let the free markets work.
You are attacking Tech and AI companies – fine. But the real threat is ALWAYS govenrment – not the markets.
So what if big tech is selling information regarding your preferences ? In many many instances that works to your benefit. It means where you still see adds you see ones likely to appeal to you – that is a GOOD thing not a bad thing.
I am having issues on Youtube – because for some strange reason Youtube has decided that I should see large numbers of islamic chant videos. No I do not want to listen to calls to prayer in arabic – not even pleasant sounding ones.
The point is I do not want Government or anyone else deciding what I shoudl see and here based on THEIR ideas of what I like. I want them to do so based on the EVIDENCE of what I like.
I would prefer to see no adds at all. But I am not likely paying for content just to avoid adds. That means I have made a choice – just as everyone else has. We have all chosen to pay for content via advertising rather than via cash.
If that is how things are going to be – Please send me adds that actually appeal to me.
I do not care that the bank tracks my spending.
I do not care than Amazon does – I may even like that.
But I absolutely do NOT want government involved.
Privacy is about Government – not about Big Tech.
All the people you are complaining about want to sell me things – and in the real world I actually do buy many things. I want buying things to be easier (and cheaper).
And I would prefer if Big Tech was trying to sell me things that I actually want. And that means they are gathering data on me. I am OK with that in the free market.
I am NOT AT ALL OK with govenrment gathering the same data.
With respect to AI. It is coming and you want it whether you know it or not.
Just as you want advertising if you must have advertising that is tailored to you even if you magically beleive that can be done without gathering information on you.
AI is going to be massively disruptive – possibly more so than the industral revolution.
Like the industrial revolution – millions are going to lose their jobs – and stressfully find new ones.
There will be lots of AI horror stories.
The price of energy may spike.
But both in the end and even from the start we will all watch as our standard of living rises rapidly.
There will be far more winners than losers and even most of the losers will just be short term.
Think of the Chaos that is Trump – amplified 10 fold.
There has never in human history been a rapid rise in standard of living that was not disruptive.
The more rapid the rise the more disruptive.
As your car drives you to work or to the theater, or as your car brings groceries or pizza to you you will wax nostaligic about the older simpler times. Forgetting getting caught in traffic and road rage. Just as those of us who were alive in the 60’s do not remember how hard it was to communicate when everyone did not have something more powerful than a star trek communicator in their pocket.
The real danger will ALWAYS be govenrment – not AI, not big tech, not selling personal data.
If you are unhappy with free market actors – reflect that in your decisions within the free market – if you are unhappy enough and enough other people are too – the market will change.
But for god’s sakes do NOT give govenrment more power – that is shooting yourself in the head.
The TOC’s M.Salazar accepted covers sharing with 3rd parties. Admittedly I do not know that as a fact, but TOC’s cover a lot of legal ground. Ever read them? Me, nope. But I’m not signing-up for anything that is free. And folks, always use disposable email addresses and never ever use your real name and address.
There has to be a point where the individual is responsible for his own actions. I am pelted with advertisements every day, and I’m certain many come from my purchasing and/or viewing habits. I routinely reject them. I do not ask the government for protection. I just delete them or say no, since I assume they are scams.
Poor Michael Salazar has his “horror on Elm Street” a-comin’ when he hits retirement age. That’s when the individual is hit constantly, dozens of times every day. All kinds of age, income, phone numbers, and email addresses end up in the hands of thousands of scammers who buy lists from banks, credit card companies, states, and, I’m sure, the Social Security Administration. Here are a few examples.
Of course, it’s old folks being targeted. So nobody cares very much.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re liberal or conservative. Scammers are politically neutral. My recommendation is to give a universal NO. Sure, you may miss a deal, but this is rare.
Sure Stevey, whatever!
The right to privacy. It’s an interesting and important legal concept. The Constitution does not mention a right of privacy. The Opinion written by Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (known as a liberal’s liberal) in “Griswold v. Connecticut” found a right of privacy under what he called a penumbra of rights. I guess if you look hard enough, you can find anything you want to find.
With that as a backdrop, I’d like to suggest that invasion of privacy by corporations should come as no surprise. Only naivety could make someone who takes “free” stuff from the internet to think that it’s really free. No, it’s not invasion of privacy by corporations that should surprise anyone. To the contrary, it’s invasion of privacy by our government (the people who we elect to protect and preserve our Constitution) that should surprise everyone.
I commend every right of privacy advocate (every Fourth Amendment advocate) to read the December 16, 2013 Memorandum Opinion by Judge Richard J. Leon in “Klayman v. Obama”, United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 13-0851. Here is a little of what Judge Leon said about the Obama Administration’s wiretapping of almost everyone in America. It uses “almost-Orwellian technology that enables the Government to store and analyze the phone metadata of every telephone user in the United States”. “I have little doubt that the author of our Constitution, James Madison, who cautioned us to beware ‘the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power’ would be aghast.”
It’s important to remember that almost every politician, including President Barak H. Obama (known as a liberal’s liberal), can act very differently than the way he or she promises to act. And having our privacy attacked by our own government is a much greater concern than having it attacked by corporations.