The Wall Street Journal today has an interesting article on computer fingerprinting, where a number of firms collect identifying information transmitted by your computer. These firms put the collected data into a database and sell this information to advertisers and other companies that wish to combat fraud.

The practice, according to the Journal, is legal. U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois, introduced legislation this past summer that would allow consumers to opt out of this type of data gathering.

Personally, I don’t subscribe to the overly dramatic concerns of the privacy police. If you don’t want it out there then get offline, but I can admire representatives like Mr. Rush who can seek out a reasonable alternative that can keep consumers and business happy. He puts his money where his mouth is, unlike some of his critics such as Free Press and Color of Change.

I painstakingly visited the websites of these two slef-vaunted protectors of the little media man to see if they published any positions against the fingerprinting practice. Guess what. Not a bleep. A big no response from the very critics accusing Mr. Rush of not being able to provide leadership on broadband and Internet issues.

A lack of response from you guys is almost criminal. Somebody get the ink and give me your fingers Color of Change, starting with your left thumb.

On the contrary, Mr. Rucker. Congressman Rush has directly addressed the issue of the FCC’s inappropriate attempts to circumvent both Congress and the courts in reclassifying Internet broadband access services as telephone service. The FCC cannot draft and implement rules that have no basis in statute. The U.S. Court of Appeals-DC Circuit has made that clear. If anyone is avoiding the issue, it is the Federal Communications Commission.

Given that the Republicans now control the House of Representatives and have increased their level of influence in the Senate, it is now more imperative that the FCC abandon its go it alone approach to net neutrality. Will the FCC recognize its proper place in our constitutional scheme or does it prefer its credibility neutralized?

Mr. Honig rightly points out Representative Rush’s street cred when it comes to advocating for issues in the minority community. Mr. Rush has not dismissed the fundamental idea of an open network. No one who understands the Internet as well as he does would.

What Mr. Honig appropriately describes is Mr. Rush’s commitment to optimizing minority inclusion at the table of opportunities the Internet presents us both as consumers and entrepreneurs. Mr. Rucker and his fellow advocates have yet to tout any consumer or entrepreneurial benefits from the overly burdensome net neutrality regulations that they press for. All Color of Change leaves us with are personal attacks and a serious lack nof civility.

Politico.com yesterday provided the following report on Color of Change’s alleged attack on Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois:Color of Change.org, which describes itself as “an online community of more than 800,000 people working to strengthen Black America’s political voice,” is petitioning Nancy Pelosi against Bobby Rush’s bid for the tech subcommittee. Executive Director James Rucker said he had “deep misgivings” about the congressman because he “has repeatedly supported the interests of the telecommunications industry over the interests of regular people, and has been a fierce opponent of network neutrality.” Rucker also said he had “grave doubts” about Rush’s ability to be an “honest broker” on telecom issues, in part because AT&T and others have donated repeatedly to the congressman.Mr. Rush put out this response:

“My position on those issues as well as my sources of contributions are a matter of public record. I will not allow the Silicon Valley funded Color of Change.Org group, which purports to ‘strengthen Black America’s political voice’ through the Internet, to call into question my integrity and honesty to lead the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology and the Internet as its Ranking Member. The notion that this Silicon Valley controlled group should have the only word on what is in the best interests of people of color is foolish. When an organization rents a Silicon Valley glass house, they ought to be careful about throwing stones.”

On the contrary, Mr. Rucker. Mr. Rush’s positions on net neutrality and reclassification of broadband access as a Title II service have always been on the side of us “regular people.” Mr. Rush understands that regulation, while having its place when appropriate, is severely misplaced when applied to an industry that is growing as well as producing jobs.

Given Mr. Rucker’s obvious disdain for good old fashioned economics and good business judgment, any first semester economics student or “regular person” who runs their own business will tell you that costs added to day-to-day operations of any business will be passed on to consumers. In addition, additional regulations mean that the regulatory barriers for entering into a market will go up as well.

Communities of color are not ready for the change in Internet access they will encounter if net neutrality tainted statutes are implemented. Minority adoption rates are below national average and if Color of Change and its cohorts get their way, net neutrality will mean that the costs for wireless access to the Internet, the primary way blacks and Hispanics access the web, will increase as well.

Mr. Rush’s experience in telecommunications combined with his status as a veteran legislator is a feather in the cap that Mrs. Pelosi cannot ignore.

Mergers such as the one proposed by NBC Universal and Comcast Corporation always bring out the antitrust cockroaches. We hear every reason why this merger would be bad for consumers, including the nauseating argument about less voices being heard and the probability that Comcast will not share the content it will acquire with other distributors of video programming.

It’s good to see that U.S. Representative Bobby Rush, Democrat of Illinois, has the insight to cut through the melodrama of the Free Press posse and cut to the chase when it comes to benefits that will flow from the merger, especially benefits that should flow to minority communities.

For example, the $20 million capital venture fund would be a win-win for Comcast and minority developers of unique content. Comcast appears to have the political and business savvy to recognize that planting a little seed money in the minority community in return for future content that will drive consumers to Comcast’s network provides some pretty neat upside.

Some of my friends in the Free Press posse will no doubt post on their blogs that Mr. Rush and other minority politicians are being hoodwinked and turned into puppets by towing the Comcast line in return for the benefits. On the contrary. This is how, in the real world of politics, you extract concessions from a business that wishes to extract profits from a community.