NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN FREE MARKET 79
NET BENEFITS LESS GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT THE BETTER
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE RIGHT AGENT TO DEAL WITH SHARING OF CONSUMER INFORMATION ISSUES
Sonia Arrison, director of the Center for Freedom and Technology at the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, The San Diego Union-Tribune December 15, 1999, SECTION: OPINION Pg. B-7: TITLE: UNCLE SNOOPY; Government may not be best in guarding consumer privacy // acs-EE2001
'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.' That old laugh line should be foremost in the minds of Americans today as the debate over the sharing of consumer information by businesses and institutions spawns louder calls for government intrusion.
MORE GOVERNMENT FUNDING INEVITABLY MEANS MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL
Solveig Singleton, director of information studies at the Cato Institute, 12 September 1997 In Defense of Libertarianismhttp://hotwired.lycos.com/synapse/feature/97/36/mccullagh4a_text.html // acs-EE2001
That's the inescapable result of nanny government: More government funding inevitably means more control.
INTERVENING IN THE MARKET TO ENSURE PRIVACY IS PATERNALISTIC
Anita L. Allen, Professor, University of Pennsylvania School of Law, "COERCING PRIVACY," William & Mary Law Review, March, 1999, 40 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 723, EE2001-hxm, P.
We could stop the avalanche of commercial opportunity by intervening in the market for privacy; that is, we could (some [*734] way or another) increase the costs of consuming other people's privacy and lower the profits of voluntarily giving up one's own privacy. The problem with this suggested strategy is that, even without the details of implementation, it raises the specter of censorship, repression, paternalism, and bureaucracy. Privacy is something we think people are supposed to want; if it turns out that they do not, perhaps third parties should not force it on them, decreasing both their utility and that of those who enjoy disclosure, revelation, and exposure.