That's human nature. As soon as something beneficial to few and detrimental to others is banned, those who benefit seek to find other ways to continue benefitting, again to the detriment of others.
This doesn't mean we shouldn't continue trying to stop them.
And we stop them through laws.
Common sense is not that common and human decency doesn't scale.
In the US, the typical citizen commits an average of a felony a day. The legal code and associated regulations are so lengthy no one can read all of them. The tax code alone is 2,600 pages and associated rulings 70,000 pages.
When you have so many laws, they can be applied selectively depending on your political status, or to benefit the regulators or their friends. We just caught the sheriff of Santa Clara extorting citizens for tens of thousands of dollars to get concealed carry permits, which is why many people carry illegally, just like criminals.
Creating a law where non-disclosure of the smallest feature opens you up to government regulators harassment is another avenue for graft and corruption. Like when the EU selectively prosecutes US companies, or US regulators selectively harass companies not in lock step with the current administration.
I think if you really need a nanny state to protect you from your own decisions you should be required to give up all your decisions to the state.
For your argument to make sence you have to demonstrate that this amounts to nanny state.
I don't think it does, I think is fraud. For it to be consequences of of my choices, what choice do I make to select a mobile phone carrier that does not sell data of my location? Such choice does not exist.
You can't 'non-disclose' some 'small feature' of a mortgage contract, of a loan, etc. Personal data deserves similar respect.
Lastly, we can and do have different laws for individuals and multi-billion dollar corporations - you cant use this as an argument when we are discussing securities fraud and banking regulations.
Laws can always be applied selectively. They have always been applied selectively.
The point of laws is statistics: you can't discourage everything, you need to discourage enough to have order.
And there is a middle ground between no laws and giving everything up.
Also, I give up my liberties and obey laws in exchange for protection from many nasty things people do when there are no laws.
Based on your examples and vocabulary ("nanny state" is a clear giveaway), you're American. Go live for 5-10 years in a country with lax or non-existent laws and law enforcement. We call those countries bad names for a solid reason.
> In the US, the typical citizen commits an average of a felony
Sorry but that’s just obvious BS. If it were true, you’d include examples and far more people a certain world leader doesn’t like would be “locked up”.
