Can Laissez-Faire Business and Privacy Coexist?

Prompt: Read two articles for each side of the Room for Debate topic, which is posted below, and tell us which side makes a stronger argument. Also, I want you to take a position on the topic...are you okay giving up your privacy rights, considering the trade-off?
After you do that, respond to your fellow readers (in a constructive way). 
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/12/11/privacy-and-the-apps-you-download
  
  Ultimately, it is up to the users to participate in the information market by choosing what they want to share and by educating themselves on how that information will be used. For example, the privacy terms that everyone bypasses when they sign up for a service actually tell a lot about what that company is going to do for you and your privacy, or conversely, how they will exploit you. It is up to the individual user to choose the service or decline. This is where parental oversight should be emphasized for minors who may not be aware of how their information will be used.
  
  However, companies should not participate in unethical dissemination of user's information just because people have signed up for their service. A great example is the 2008-2009 investment scandal involving Bernard Madoff. He successfully pulled the wool over investors eyes and the SEC, took people's money, and he is now known for the biggest Ponzi scheme of the decade. There are three things to take from this. First, the "users" had the chance to question their rosy ROIs, but for the most part, they were completely in the dark. Second, the SEC should have noticed something amiss, it is their job. Most importantly, Bernie Madoff participated in criminal activities before people knew about it, and he was charged and found guilty for criminal acts when it came to light. In short, businesses have the right to engage in commerce with user's freely given information, but they should not permit themselves to overstep just because no one knows what they are doing.
  
  The government is the watchdog, the referee. They are responsible to keep Ponzi schemes from happening, or at least be there with the gavel saying "Guilty!" when the time comes. Maybe the most proactive they could be regarding information privacy is to make a new mandate. Businesses should be required by law to make interactive privacy terms complete with pictures, music, and real-life examples, narrated by a talking animal or a celebrity.

  I think the people who are propose more privacy controls have the stronger argument. The reality now is that more information than ever is distributed and the trend is continuing. Arguing for more privacy as opposed to more disclosure will never go out of style.
  
  
Thanks.