The American company supply telephone services and Internet AT&T just released an incredibly fast internet service with visual fiber to Kansas City for $70 a month. 
But this is not the news: customers who do not want to be spied on by the telecommunications giant during duration of the web surfing them, they will have to pay an additional $29.
In other words, a dubious preservation of online personal life will cost around 350 dollars a year.
Lustiness on the part of the company, or straightness, this will be judged by each of you.
The question is whether there can be such an agreement. Is it fair for AT&T to force consumers to protect themselves by paying a price?
The answer for internet romantics is probably no. But for others, more rationalists, the answer is yes. THE choice of paying to secure your privacy probably seems harsh, but that's how the internet works to this day.
Google and Facebook, for example, offer "free" services that are not really free. The price is not measured with money but with our personal data.
AT&T just makes it more open. Would you like protection; Pay.
In the future, it is very likely that we will see more companies doing the same.
At a time when it is now known that the internet is a great platform for global gathering and collectionof information from secret and non-secret services many will consider doing the same.
The question is whether they can do it, since entire governments have failed and laws seem to be powerless in the new virtual environment.
Is the paid protection of our privacy the solution that stops the collection of information from the secret services or from the advertisers?
I do not think.
We have seen that the on-lineThe world is very "open." Nothing can be hidden, and even if it manages to do so, there will always be someone who manages to discover a crack accesss. In addition, advertising agencies and secret services are constantly discovering new ways of collecting data.
Would you pay for such a service?
