On-line ordering depends on cheap physical-world delivery, and this will drive them out of business.
If they cut off mail, we'll either be reduced to post-boxes or parcel delivery. Boxes don't work for parcels, even in apartment buildings, where they used heavily. Parcel delivery has the same problem with boxes: everyone ends up getting a postcard and schlepping off to the local pickup point because the darned boxes aren't big enough to hold the parcel. And big boxes are unaffordable!
Parcel delivery, on the other hand, is insanely more expensive: it loses out on the efficiency of loading up a truck and doing every house on the street, one after another. Parcel guys have to solve the "travelling salesman problem" in their head as they zig-zag across the city. Street-by-street delivery is O(n), parcel delivery O(n!) (and NP-hard in the general case).
In effect, the government proposes we go back to the 18th century, and pick up rare and expensive parcels at a local substation, and pay through the nose for the manual handling that involves.
If you aren't one of the 1% who can have their servants pick up the goods they ordered, you're not going to order anything on-line. You'll go to the store, just like grandpa and grandma. (Of course, the government says they're "conservative", so maybe that's what they intended (;-))
Previously when I've seen a set of principles espoused to a government by a group of competitors that don't currently follow those principles, it's been a polite request to "give us all a level playing field" by banning something.
If my leaky memory is correct, an association of competing car dealers asked Canada (or perhaps merely Ontario) to set rules about resetting odometers. Customers strongly distrusted odometer readings in those days, and suspected universal dishonesty by used-car dealers. So they asked for it to be made illegal.
It was widely thought that they wished to give up a self-destructive practice, but feared individual business failures if they didn't all give it up at the same time.
If Google and friends say "snooping should be illegal, even for the police", then they need not engage in a race to the bottom with each other.
Methinks we may need a general mechanism for identifying nutters that's hard to spoof, so that the folks who used to spend their days flaming innocent passers-by on usenet can't just migrate here.
This is probably an instance of a byzantine fault-tolerance problem, as solved by Barbara Liskov. As a bad example, consider displaying one of those little bi-coloured pills one uses for friends and foes, with the numbers voting shown in each side. ONLY if N people vote him "id10t" and N is at least one greater than 3 times the the people who vote him legit, mind you! Generally displaying reputation or friend/foes icons would just lead to flaming about reputations and scores.
They're called "moral" rights to distinguish them from economic rights. In your case, they allow you to control whether your name is on the work or whether you wish a pseudonym used to prevent your name from being mentioned in reference to it (;-))
In Canada they came out of a Criminal Code amendment to prevent plays from being stolen and the author's name changed. The theft was breach of an economic right, the renaming a breach of a moral right.
In countries like Canada, authors have "moral rights" under copyright law, specifically including the right to be be named as the author of a work, even if it is paid for by another. These cannot be waived, and in some specific cases can only be assigned.
One might declare a non-assignable moral right to make available one's work, including for purposes of showing a "portfolio" of one's work, or making scholarly works available to other scholars.