> than an opportunity to offer users better privacy I have a site that I did this with. I also wish the US would pass a law like this. And I beg to differ. No,

> than an opportunity to offer users better privacy I have a site that I did this with. I also wish the US would pass a law like this. And I beg to differ. No, I don't believe this is self-contradictory. The issue is risk. I'm a one-man band - the site in question does make money most of the time, but not much, and it has always been much more of a hobby/labor of love than a business[1]. And when any legal change means I might end up with legal grief or potentially not be visit European relatives again, even if I generally approve of the change, I'm going to knife it because there is no planet on which the site means more to me than the risk. My plan right now is to let the big boys who can afford it take the initial lawsuits and let them shake out what the vagaries mean, then come back in a year or so and see what my exposure would be if I let ya'll back in. [1] Oh, and it should already be complaint, at least as I understand 'compliant'; I added notices and rejiggered a few things for selective denial and whatnot. I never have and never will sell/rent/share user data, don't integrate with any surveillance/ad networks, etc. But I have no confidence that someone won't see me as a likely target to use to make some point, and hiring a legal consultant for something this size would take it from slightly profitable to a future break-even measured in many years.