You're mixing levels of analysis here. You might as well say, "He didn't vote; he just used some sort of chemical-containing stick to make marks on a thin slice of a tree." Your point about legislation being needed would be stronger without that.

My point isn't about levels of abstraction, it's about standardized communication protocols. Making marks on a thin slice of a tree conveys a vote exactly because that's what the government decided the way to make a vote would be. If I write my vote in hieroglyphic etchings on an old shoe and post it to the first lady, I can't expect my vote to be counted.

Effective communication is about what people agree on. Government recognition is one avenue for that, but it often follows the populace rather than leading it.

I understand your point, but 'evil do-ers' break existing laws then this could be considered evidence.

I'm fairy sure a mix privacy & contract laws in my country would hold companies subject to this as its stands if you didn't agree to allow them to do it in a EULA.

Because if I'm not mistaken by accepting the request you are agreeing to contractual obligations... so the server has to accept your contract to engage in transactions... the server can choose to accept or deny this transaction... by default accepting the contract.

Of course you would have a good defence against this a well, so agreed you'd need it standardised to make it a real threat against a company in court. Would be interesting to see played out in court TBH.

Also if stances are made like this then changes will never manifest, because its close to useless now doesn't mean it won't become a foundation for something later.