> Government isn't the answer to most problems and certainly not this. The market fixes this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wiki

> Government isn't the answer to most problems and certainly not this. The market fixes this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis There is no law of nature that suggests a free (laissez-faire) market fixes anything. More specifically, that style of pure capitalism only has one inherent trait: capital tends to become accumulated. While I, personally, think this kind of unidirectional focus is not healthy in the long run, the amount of regulation needed to mix into a market is a difficult and open questions. > might have increased lawsuit exposure Yes. That would be the entire point of regulation. You follow the legislated regulations or you get hit with some sort of lawsuit or fine or similar. > because of someone's interpretation of what the permissible purpose of that permission might be. I agree! This is a very difficult problem to describe in a clear, reliable manner. I suggest that the industry should be proactive on this; it would be a lot better if the people with the technical knowledge came up with some sort of permission scheme that avoided ambiguity and more accurately reflected what types of permissions the applications actually use. The alternative is to wait for some well-meaning but technically inept legislation, and all the idiocy it implies. > education of the public is necessary Absolutely. This is always of vital importance. > I don't trust legislators Neither do I - which is why it is important to beat them to the punch with your own solutions and legislation. "we had to create the future, or others will do it for us" - Susan Ivanova, "Sleeping in Light", Babylon 5