Is there a simple privacy law that actually makes sense?

There is lot of copyright law violation in this Buddhist (Ceylon) country where one talks about upholding 5 precepts.

As a solution I try to promote Linux in this country.
Sometime back, I found only 32 users in this country and only 1% users worldwide.
I gave up except making blog post here. 
Funnily enough top visitors from US and Russia.
Ceylon comes third currently.

Only country that uses Linux exclusively including operating nuclear reactors is none other than North Korea!
Even the space station uses it-(Russian-US collaboration in style).

Below is cumulative results

United States	72889
Sri-Lanka	17882
Russia	5708
Germany	3853
France	3006
Poland	2019
Canada	1867
Sweden	1394
United Kingdom	1388
South Korea	1288

Reproduction 

Is there a simple privacy law that actually makes sense?

Gabriel Weinberg, CEO/Founder DuckDuckGo. Co-author Super Thinking, Traction.

Updated Nov 7

Yes! Despite all the protestations you hear from Big Tech, there is a simple privacy law that makes sense without destroying the tech industry. Let me explain, but first, for context if you’re unfamiliar, you should know that DuckDuckGo (my company) has a vision to raise the standard of trust online and so this topic is near and dear to our hearts. We’re vehemently opposed to tracking users and are the leading provider of privacy protection tools, including a private search engine alternative to Google (DuckDuckGo Private Search), a private mobile web browser alternative to Chrome (DuckDuckGo Privacy Browser for iOS/Android), and a plugin that makes your desktop searching and browsing more private (DuckDuckGo Privacy Essentials for Safari/Firefox/Chrome).

As you probably know, many countries are right now taking up the greatly needed task of updating their privacy laws for this modern era. However, they are consistently missing one key component when doing so: an easy opt-out mechanism. Anyone who ever has been to a European website in the past year will know what I’m talking about. While Europe’s GDPR law does a lot of great things, it also has created pop-up hell, much like the cookie law that preceded it.

searchers proposed this compelling idea to help protect people’s privacy online: a web browser setting called Do Not Track. Once enabled, your browser would thereafter send a Do Not Track signal to the websites you visit, informing them that you do not give them permission to collect or share your personal information for behavioral advertising, price discrimination, or for any other purpose. If this setting was working, then all those hidden trackers that are watching you around the Internet would be cut off in one shot.

Unfortunately, the idea fell apart when the ad-tech industry balked at any meaningful self-regulation. Despite that, many web browsers actually did build the feature into their platforms, and, in the intervening years, hundreds of millions of people worldwide have turned the feature on. A Forrester research report found 25% of people using the Do Not Track setting, and a national survey we conducted found 23%.

Of course, unbeknownst to the vast majority of these people, this browser setting is doing next to nothing right now. It is currently left to each site individually do what they think is right. And, lo and behold, none of the big tech companies do anything with it, giving all these people a false sense of privacy. That, however, can change overnight with a law that mandates Do Not Track compliance.

It is extremely rare to have such an exciting legislative opportunity where the hardest work — coordinated mainstream technical implementation and widespread consumer adoption — is already done. That’s why we even took the time to draft model Do Not Track legislation earlier this year.

Here’s how it would work. The signal would work like it already does today – enabled by your web browser, operating system (for apps), or Internet router (for home devices). Once on, companies that receive the signal would have to respect it, and stop tracking you. The legislation would need to define the line of what is allowed and what is not allowed. We defined it like this in our proposal: