There's an absence of consumer rights and a large number of small actors who are mostly criminals. Dealing with them is like swatting flies one by one, rather than putting up a fence to keep out all the dogs.

Amazon wants to protect themselves from later [customer] lawsuits that claim, 'We weren't told,' ... They also want to leave the door open if they need to sell off a division or claim bankruptcy. They know that their consumer database is one of their most valuable assets, so they want to give themselves max flexibility--which means less privacy for customers.

It shows that we're on a downhill slope. Companies, as they go into bankruptcy or find out more about the legal risks, tend to erect reinforcements around their posteriors. That's bad for the consumer.

We're outraged at that, ... It turns out to be a piece of sleight of hand on Intel's part because they were never in control over whether the ID feature would be turned off. It's always been in the control of the OEMs [PC makers].

We're outraged at that. It turns out to be a piece of sleight of hand on Intel's part because they were never in control over whether the ID feature would be turned off. It's always been in the control of the OEMs [PC makers].

That's like saying we can't have privacy laws for telephones to protect the privacy of telephone conversations because that might spill over into other areas,