If there’s one thing government bureaucrats seem to do better than anyone else, it’s inventing reasons for creating more and more pages of regulations.

Here we go again. A California government commission is getting ready to generate more regulations.

The bureaucrats’ latest attempt to justify their existence comes in the idea of “protecting consumers” by restricting what information businesses can collect about people. The idea sounds good in theory, but in practice it means that we give up control of our privacy—and it’s about as effective as an umbrella in a hurricane.

Instead of governments deciding what information we can provide to businesses in exchange for discounts and special deals, we should have the right to make our own choices. I don’t mind giving Safeway my mailing address (heck, maybe I’ll even get some useful coupons) in exchange for discounts on groceries. Sure, it means we all get some junk mail (but in fin de siecle America, maybe that’s the price of freedom.)

The problem with one-size-fits all rules that the California Assembly Consumer Protection Committee is considering is that to some people an unsolicited newsletter might be a valuable source of information while to others it’s an Orwellian invasion of privacy.

And it’s truly ironic that privacy advocates are pushing for governments to get involved in “protecting” our privacy because time and time again history has shown that privacy from governments is more important than privacy from private citizens or businesses. Private companies track consumer information to better serve customers, but governments have other intentions—and these usually include identifying and disposing of political enemies.

Recall the intrusive campaigns of J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI, a tradition that continues in the Clinton Administration’s designs to spy on Americans through the Federal Intrusion Detection Network (FIDNET) and perhaps through the Echelon plan too. No one, especially privacy advocates, should think that governments are our best line of defense against prying eyes.

Instead, the path to better protection of personal data is achieved through consumer pressure, new technologies, and private polices that act as privacy contracts. Consider how quickly RealNetworks fixed its RealJukebox software after it was revealed that there was an unknown tracking mechanism built inside. Or, think about how quickly Amazon acted to allow customers to opt out of its “purchase circles”—a published list of group purchasing patterns—after some customers voiced opposition. And beyond simple consumer pressure, individuals enjoy many other options to protect their privacy.

New software technologies, such as Zero Knowledge Systems’ Freedom software and Enonymous.com’s Advisor (which is downloadable free of charge), are installed on a user’s computer and protect a consumer’s identity on-line. Likewise, many companies now post their privacy policies on-line and have joined certification programs offering “seals of approval,” such as the ones offered by BBB Online and TRUSTe. And if you don’t want to read the privacy policy every time you visit a site, programs like Advisor, Novell’s Digitalme, and soon to be released Superprofile by Lumeria Incorporated will rate the sites for you based on your personal preferences.

These safeguards and products have been created because industry knows that its best interests require responding meaningfully to consumer privacy concerns. With their purchasing power, consumers can wield more impact on information practices than government at any level.

The challenge for virtually every American, as beneficiaries of this information revolution, is to utilize the many privacy protections already available. The challenge for policymakers, if they are truly concerned about protecting privacy, is to reject the latest attempts of government bureaucrats to meddle in every corner of American life.

Sonia Arrison is director of the Center for Freedom and Technology at the California-based Pacific Research Institute. She can be reached via email at sarrison@pacificresearch.org.