Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), opened his remarks on Internet privacy today with a colorful analogy—companies who use your personal Internet information without first obtaining consent are like the Redcoats, quartering in your home against your will.

"I'm going to read the Third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States," Barton began. "'No Soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law' If the Founding Fathers would have had the Internet, instead of saying that without the consent of the owner to put soldiers in your home, they would have said without the consent of the Internet user, they couldn't collect data."

Barton was on the warpath today at the fourth House hearing looking into Internet privacy issues. "It's time that the Congress of the United States has a strong, general, explicit privacy protection law," he said. "We've approached the use of the Internet more from a marketing standpoint "

But this sort of thing doesn't go down at all well with other Republicans. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), another heavy hitter on tech policy issues, dusted off an odd analogy of her own—personal information on the Internet is like rich oil buried deep in the ground, and behavioral advertisers and others are the helpful Exxon Mobils of the world who retrieve it for us. And who would possibly want to regulate Exxon Mobil?

"I've decided that this data should be treated as a natural resource, and that the DNA of this data is very powerful. It really is the lifeblood of a thriving Internet economy," Blackburn said in her opening remarks. "Should we allow our free market to explore this natural resource and learn to commercialize it, protect it, and respect it? Or are we going to restrict it altogether? Why should government be the decision maker? Government seems to know so little, it reacts slowly, works poorly." (If you thought those were actually open questions, Blackburn later quoted economist F.A. Hayek and praised "empower[ing] people instead of government.")

"Enough is enough"



Lawmakers are trying to decide whether self-regulation and the existing authority of the Federal Trade Commission are enough to handle the huge array of Internet privacy concerns surrounding geolocation data, behavioral advertising, and more—or whether legislation is needed. Today's hearing served as a reminder that privacy isn't a strictly partisan issue, as Barton found himself in agreement with Democrats like George Butterfield (D-NC), who argued for a "national baseline privacy law."

While the Representatives presiding over today's hearing sounded knowledgeable about the general issues involved, the occasional comment brought down the facade and served as a reminder that, when it comes to technical details, most Congressmen are simply out of their depth. Here, for instance, is Barton's take on Amazon's intriguing new Silk Web browser, which routes requests through Amazon's cloud service for faster backend processing of website data, before delivering it to the local browser.

"My staff yesterday told me that one of our leading Internet companies, Amazon, is going to create their own server and their own system and they're going to force everybody that uses Amazon to go through their server and they're going to collect all this information on each person who does that without that person's knowledge. Enough is enough."

While Silk does indeed raise some fascinating privacy questions, they aren't the ones Barton is asking. Amazon has already told Ars that all collected usage data is anonymous and stored in aggregate, and that Silk users can switch the browser to behave like a conventional one if they wish. The browser is also designed for Amazon's Fire tablet, not for "everybody that uses Amazon."

So the great privacy debate marches on. While some Republicans, who currently control the House, have already made up their minds about the best path forward, others have not. As Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-CA), who chaired today's hearing, put it in her opening statement, "Despite everything that I have heard in our previous hearings, I still remain somewhat skeptical right now of both industry and government. Frankly, I don’t believe industry has proven that it’s doing enough to protect American consumers, while government, unfortunately, tends to overreach whenever it comes to new regulations."

In the end, the privacy legislation debate may come down to a simple calculation: who sucks less?