Reading your post I find I agree with you in principle but not in practice. What our representatives feel is best for us is not necessarily the beneficial.

For instance if they are trying to solve a problem, a solution that removes freedoms but solves the problem can easily gain the votes to become law.

Also consider that our politicians typically do not campaign as champions of individual freedom. They all speak of freedom in a general sense, but how many of them even see this as an issue?

Our representatives start out as prominent citizens, usually passionately committed to the ideals of government and the nation. When the get to Capitol Hill they tend to adopt the conventional wisdom and conventions approaches to solving problems.

If our representatives understood the this problem and were called on to maintain freedoms by citizens these laws would be different and preserve freedoms.

There were rumors that the UK would be relaxing a number of their tight "War on Terror" type measures.
And now they are getting rid of a major intrusive program!

It's a great day for Britain, especially if this indicates a trend. Before this they were shedding liberties at a high rate!

Now if the US could only follow their lead!

One thing is certain, these knee jerk laws certainly erode the rights of citizens who in no way were part of the event causing the stupid reaction.

But really, since when has our government cared about freedom and rights? Being elected is a concern and getting tax money also is.
But like dogs, they seem to live entirely in the present and are incapable of extrapolating the long term consequences of all of these laws.

But they sure know how to raise Millions of Corporate contributions and note that these "sponsors" also have no stake in public freedoms.

Now you see how inventive these politicians are! Just copy the actions of less advanced nations and everything will be better!

These fellows just want a cause that is sure to be voted though. They probably could care less what it is or what impact it will have.

It is true that there is a role for anonymous communications in a free society.
Just look at how the Internet relies on anonymous communications and how this promotes individual freedom and creativity. Consider that being gone and the effect.

But notice how our current society operates: when a crackpot tries to blow up an airliner with his shoe we all must have shoes inspected, when another tries to blow up liquids, our liquids are removed.

Now an anonymous phone is used an a attempted bombing so no anonymous purchases will be allowed. Committed bombers will just use their fake ID, but everyone else loses yet another freedom (albeit minor).

Maybe we better contact the bombers and beg them not to be so creative or we will all be living in guarded barracks with no freedoms at all!

Free? Sure we are. Just keep thinking that and don't complain as our freedoms are stripped away one by one. Just to make some politician look good!

Could it be that they are observing the rich, rich politicians in the Corporate States of America and offering their souls up for sale too?

We couldn't export Democracy but we sure could export Corruption!

Not wholly owned? On Capitol Hill they all know that once the payment is received they are obligated for any requested services.

I'd be surprised if there was anything they wouldn't do short of murder or starring in porn movies. Then again.

This and other results bear our your thesis.

The same was true with the "Corporate" Healthcare Bill. Almost all of the Democrats had their hands out for the Corporate Millions.
And they voted predictably.

If possible the Democrats may actually be More Corrupt than the Republicans.

Internet access is not a luxury like entertainment and is more necessary than television or radio.

The FCC and some forces in the government logically wished to treat internet access as a utility but it appears that legal Corporate graft has won instead.

And this has happened where the ISP's are virtual monopolies!

Some of the new possibilities include finding your internet access restricted to a handful of sites unless you buy access to additional sites for extra fees.
Wish to access non-US or EU sites? Good luck finding a package for that!

Since ISP's are becoming liable for Copyrighted material why won't they just remove access to sites and services that people use to access material?
What percentage of the Internet will Americans even have access to?
And of course they can use bandwidth throttling to make sure only advertising comes through at high speeds. True Internet Hell!

So we need ISP alternatives! With today's technology their must be ways around the US ISP monopolies. What could a satellite dish and equipment do?
Is it feasible to setup a "Whole Internet" Coop with WiFi in an area? Or are there regulations making it illegal to bypass the monopolies?

They are just following standard business procedure in the Corporate States of America!

ISP's would always act in the best interest of their customers? Absolute rubbish.

Net neutrality is in the best interest of every customer. Breaking it and adding high costs to internet access is only in the best interests of Corporate profit.

The 3 rules of Free Enterprise:
    1. Maximize Profit
    2. Minimize Cost
    3. Follow your Corporate Charter (Optional)

The #1 mission of free enterprise is to Maximize Profits. And this is why you must pay more and more for the same service.

For a small fee!

People ought to get used to reality in the Corporate States of America! Even the Supreme Court serves the Corporations here!

The only way the public could ever have representation would be to form a powerful lobbying organization with a lot of funding.

It's purpose would be to buy politicians that agree to represent the public interest.

There would be a lot of obstacles to making a plan like this work and keep working, but the alternative sucks.

In the US we only get the crumbs the Corporations throw us out of the goodness of their hearts!

The Trouble with laws / treaties made by Big Media is exactly the same trouble as laws made by Big Corporations: perspective.

Both groups fail to see beyond their legislative goals and this results in laws that impact far more than the areas they intend.

Laws ought to be studied and debated by the public and all of the consequences understood and taken into consideration in the law or treaty.
Otherwise the collateral damage will outweigh the gains sought by the special interests involved.

Ultimately special interests and Corporations care only about their agendas and profits and not about the impact to society they have.
Only Congress should be allowed to make laws and treaties like this and only when circumstance or the people require it.