Picketing Google's CEO is not the way to change the law. If you don't like the law, there's a category of people generally known as "lawmakers" -- typically el

Picketing Google's CEO is not the way to change the law. If you don't like the law, there's a category of people generally known as "lawmakers" -- typically elected representatives of wider groups of people who are then endowed with the power to change the laws. You should either try to influence the lawmakers directly, or indirectly through electing other lawmakers. In other words, there's nothing really new to what I wrote: if you don't like what Google is doing, there's a way to appeal, contest, you name it. The legal ways to do this are designed the way they are in order to take into account the freedoms and convenience of people involved in the process. > "Fixing" these problems is down to the morality of the observer. No, it's not. Laws are designed to regulate relationships between many people for the benefit of many people in most cases. And in the case in point, that's exactly what they are meant to do. The morality of individual observer is not and should not be the authority to fix these laws. Pretty much the same reason why individuals in most but the very trivial cases are not allowed to prosecute the law: this creates anarchy, and, in practice, leads to something like what's happening in Haiti today -- gang violence, failed economy, failed medical system etc.