Maybe it&#x27;s just me, but these rules are contradictory. The sentences seem explicitly designed to make that so.<p>For instance, your email address and birthday, for, say, amazon.com, could easily be argued to &quot;need to be kept in order to conduct business&quot;. After all, your email ... amazon spams it ... that&#x27;s certainly part of the business they conduct (and frankly, they&#x27;d be more expensive if they didn&#x27;t do that, so there&#x27;s easy arguments that it&#x27;d be harder to do business if they didn&#x27;t). Your birthday ... same. They spam you harder on your birthday ... also part of their business.<p>Laws like this won&#x27;t protect anything. The simple fact is you can&#x27;t have easy to use sites like google, facebook, amazon and the many millions of easy webshops and have protection of private data, it just wouldn&#x27;t work as well. Since people prove time and time again that they want the webshops and &quot;private&quot; chats far more than they want privacy, there is no way to win this fight. Everything is decided already (and already today kids don&#x27;t have anywhere near the expectation of privacy that adults have, this will get worse), there&#x27;s just a few decades of denial remaining.<p>Take the single account (real name policy) on facebook. We all know that&#x27;s the reason facebook comments don&#x27;t work like youtube comments do. That&#x27;s why not every second post on facebook is about hitler. That&#x27;s why it&#x27;s easy to find people on facebook. And so on. You can&#x27;t drop it and expect the same functionality, and people have proven with their feet (&#x2F;mouse) that they want the functionality more than they want multi-name policy.