Former CIA and NSA employee source of intelligence leaks

[Berkut]

I am focused ont eh principle, and have no problem with the principle of consumer protection laws, of course. We have lots of them.

But we are not talking about princicples, we are talking about a specifically proposed law to "protect" consumers from entering into a contract based on some imagined unfairness.

No, it is not an imagined unfairness. It is an unfairness. Period. Otherwise the consumer protection law does not apply.  Perhaps that is where you go wrong in your argument.

Even if I grant that it is unfair, it would be based on the terms you've defined as "unfair". Which are not a consequence of any decision made by the big, mean company, but simply as the reality of the relationship. It is just as unfair that when I drive up to Wendy's, they pretty much tell me take it or leave it as far as the price and conditions under which they will sell me a cheeseburger. Of course, there are massive consumer protection laws around that as well - but not a one of them forces Wendy's to negotiate anything with me.

That means that it is actually not even possible for the company to make a "fair" deal. Even if the government steps in and mandates the deal, it is still nor fair, since by your definition of what makes it unfair (lack of the consumer ability to negotiate the deal) they still cannot do so, absent a law that forces Apple to individually negotiate with consumers, which of course isn't even possible law or not.

Your solution doesn't even solve the problem you claim exists. As I pointed out, and you so conveniently simply edited out.

[Bluebook]

No, the extent of the tradeoff is determined by the legislative assembly and accepted or modified through elections.

Then you are talking about a choice, and not an inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state.

The inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state is to have your freedom restricted. The extent of those restrictions is determined by the legislature and (in a democracy) accepted or modified through elections. You do not have a choise in this equation, other than the "accept it or move", but you do have a vote.

I don't follow.

Consumer protection laws only apply to situations where a company is trying to take unfair advantage of the consumer.

[Admiral Yi]

The inescapable prerequisite of living in a nation state is to have your freedom restricted. The extent of those restrictions is determined by the legislature and (in a democracy) accepted or modified through elections. You do not have a choise in this equation, other than the "accept it or move", but you do have a vote.

Sure.  And in a democratic society we can choose which freedoms to limit.

Consumer protection laws only apply to situations where a company is trying to take unfair advantage of the consumer.

Either your definition of "unfair" is highly negotiable or this statement is patently false.

[The Minsky Moment]

Not really, we have such laws in Sweden. DG has a point that you fail to adress in your reply; the entering into contract is not between two equal partners, and the only option is to refuse the service altogether. Considering how important an internet access and a phone is in everyday life, refusing service is not a realistic alternative. Which leaves consumer protection legislation.

If the logic behind this view were honestly extended to other areas, then my statement that government would be overwhelmed would be true.  Because any contract between a business entity and an ordinary individual is "not between two equal partners."  There are always risks of coercion and manipulation.  If one is going to take this logic seriously, then the government needs to step in and set the terms of every consumer contract, at least in any industry dominated by big players, which is many industries indeed.  The fact that the EU and its constituent nations have chosen to focus so heavily on data privacy issues (at the same time as the horsemeat scandal revealed weaknesses in the food regulation regime, to take just one example) is as much a reflection of the lack of a strong domestic tech lobby as the objective importance of matters being regulated.

[Bluebook]

Even if I grant that it is unfair, it would be based on the terms you've defined as "unfair". Which are not a consequence of any decision made by the big, mean company, but simply as the reality of the relationship. It is just as unfair that when I drive up to Wendy's, they pretty much tell me take it or leave it as far as the price and conditions under which they will sell me a cheeseburger. Of course, there are massive consumer protection laws around that as well - but not a one of them forces Wendy's to negotiate anything with me.

You are confusing several different types of consumer protection laws here. Lets take your Wendys example. You are protected by laws that make sure that the food served is eatable, cooked under a reasonable standard of hygiene. But in your Wendys example, you would not be protected by consumer protection laws if, for example, Wendys decided to take $100 for a burger. As long as they informed you of that price on the menu. Price is rarely ever covered in a consumer protection law, but what is covered is if the company slaps you with an extra service fee.

For example, you go to Wendys and order a burger for $10. On the back side on the bottom of the menu there is a block of small-print writing that you didnt read. You get your burger, eat it, but when the bill arrives, you are charged with $110. What is this? You ask, it said $10 on the menu. Yes, is the reply, but the service fee is $100 on a wednesday after 5pm, it says so right there on the back of the menu in the small-print. But I didnt see that and I did not accept that, you say. Oh, but it is not our fault that you do not read the entire offer we made you through our menu, is it?

I edited out lots of stuff in your post because it was irrelevant to what a consumer protection law is or what I am trying to say. Price is not an issue unless the consumer was misled or otherwise could not  reasonably be expected to understand what the company was charging in extra fees etc. You missunderstand when you think this is about the ability to negotiate or that it would prevent the company to make a profit etc.

[Iormlund]

Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?

Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?

[Berkut]

Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?

Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

[The Minsky Moment]

Consumer protection laws only apply to situations where a company is trying to take unfair advantage of the consumer.

The Berkut-Yi objection is sound: "unfair advantage" is very vague and elastic; how does it not default to simply being whatever you subjectively think is wrong?

The touchstone for consumer protection should be an analysis of the market and evidence of market failure.  For example, the government is heavily involved in food safety regulation because the monitoring costs of the huge, complex food supply chain are so heavy no individual consumer could hope to undertake them, and due to those complexities as well as the incentives of individual producers to mispresent their activities, it is more effective and effiecient for a centralized authority with strong investigative and enforcement powers to assume that function. 

The sale of ordinary consumer electronics like a television or a radio is less in need of heavy government regulation - these are products consumers can try out in a store and are within their ken; independent consumer reviews are easily available for those interest, and strong competition between producers keeps prices down and improves quality, reliability and feature sets.

So my question would be - what is the evidence for market failure in the apparent weakness of privacy policies for phones and tablets?  One of two things could be going on here: either the (1) evil tech companies are conspiring to undermine privacy and duping gullible consumers, or (2) each of these companies is making a separate decision in calibrating their policies that their ability to use data to lower cost and improve the reliability and feature set of their products is more attractive to consumers than a stronger privacy regime.  And if (2) is true, than having the government step in and force the companies to change their policies leaves both producer and consumers worse off.  So the case for intervention depends on showing that (1) is more likely than (2).  I don't see the evidence for that.  Indeed, it seems to me the evidence is the contrary - because barriers to entry are relatively low, if (1) were true, and a strong demand for more robust privacy policies existed, a new entrant would exploit that demand with a product-service offering that fulfills it, complete with a big advertising campaign lambasting the competion.  And yet we do not see that.

[Iormlund]

Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?

Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

Yes, it's that easy. Which explains why all over the civilized world there are no laws pertaining the matter ... oh wait!!

[Bluebook]

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor. So these is a classic false dilemma - there is not "go without healthcare" repercussion.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

What if all doctors and lawyers sell your data?

[Berkut]

Why is "accept or log out" by definition unfair?

Why is "accept that your doctor or lawyer can sell your data or go without healthcare or legal counsel" by definition unfair?

If my doctor wanted to sell my data, I would find another doctor.

Oh dear, allowing me to make a choice! Can't have that! I might make the wrong one!

Yes, it's that easy. Which explains why all over the civilized world there are no laws pertaining the matter ... oh wait!!

Nobody is arguing that there aren't laws. Who are you arguing with?

[The Minsky Moment]

For example, you go to Wendys and order a burger for $10. On the back side on the bottom of the menu there is a block of small-print writing that you didnt read. You get your burger, eat it, but when the bill arrives, you are charged with $110. What is this? You ask, it said $10 on the menu. Yes, is the reply, but the service fee is $100 on a wednesday after 5pm, it says so right there on the back of the menu in the small-print. But I didnt see that and I did not accept that, you say. Oh, but it is not our fault that you do not read the entire offer we made you through our menu, is it?

Good example.
What the example suggests is the need of a contract regime where parties are required to be explicit and clear about the terms and conditions.
In the data privacy context that would mean requiring the seller to state their privacy policy in reasonably clear terms.
But of course that already exists.  That is the very thing that you and DGuller find insufficient.
What you are proposing instead is that the government set the substantive terms for the contract of the sale of the burger, not just the disclosure.  So to take your example, let's say Wendys does charge a premium price at particular times of the day to reflect peak demand.  The appropriate analogy here would be a government rule forbidding the premium pricing as unfairly exploitative to consumers who have only a limited choice of fast food burgers.

[Iormlund]

because barriers to entry are relatively low ...

Wait what? Barriers are low to become an ISP or develop a phone OS? If it's that easy to dethrone Google as a search engine how do you explain its de facto monopoly status? Or Microsofts in the PC OS market?

[Berkut]

If monopoly status is what defines your indicator for a issue, then surely the cellular phone market is in good shape - I have MANY choices when it comes to what cellular phone I want to purchase.

[Iormlund]

On a slightly related topic: just saw pics of Snowden's dancer girlfriend. Holy crap!

Going from banging that girl on a regular basis to (at best) a life on the run. Now that's commitment to freedom.