I've made the entry to your new career simple with this privacy industry deck of cards. These cards articulate all the arguments you need to make your case, without actually knowing anything. Master these arguments, and you too could be a high-paid lobbyist for almost any tech industry. Update: Ed Mierzwinski of US PIRG has suggested some additional cards based on his years of experience of listening to inane arguments.

Before you play, it helps to know some strategy. Keep these rules in mind:

• Delay almost always works to your advantage.
• Muddy the waters where possible.
• Exploit staffers' ignorance, where possible.
• "Poison the well." If there is any flaw in the opponent's argument; suggest the entire campaign is unwarranted.
• When hearing a consumer advocate's argument, deliberately misunderstand it and interpret it in the most absurd way possible
• Employ the vagueness fallacy; speak of glowingly of the importance of "trust."
• Denigrate Washington broadly, speak of "bureaucrats," etc.
• If someone calls your bluff (for instance, when you say something absurd like "this law will cause our business to leave the state," use your joker or other face card.
• If a lower-value card doesn't work at first, just keep on playing it over and over.

Now that you have some strategery, here are the cards:

Play this one initially: Claim that no problem even exists.

If the problem is apparent, deny that it causes harm:

If there is harm, dismiss it:

You might be able to deflect some criticism by blaming the problem (that doesn't exist, and even if it did, doesn't cause harm) on a contractor. Spyware vendors are master players of this card.

You can always claim that the barrel isn't rotten, so there's no reason to take action. Blame it on "bad apples." For some reason, people find this argument compelling.

If there is serious harm, play this card:

Go on the offensive and accuse the consumer groups of being do gooders:

If the industry is new, say that the proposal is unnecessary because of the industry's competitiveness. It doesn't matter whether the field really is competitive. People just like to hear that word.

If the industry isn't regulated:

If that doesn't work, create a bogus self-regulatory body to whitewash the problem:

If the industry is heavily regulated:

A sure way to prevent substantive consumer protection is to call for consumer education. Just look at the tobacco industry--they can spend billions promoting their products and wash their hands of the problem by sponsoring some educational advertising.

If the proposal touches on business practices or technology, say it will stifle innovation.

Even better--if your opponent is a nitwit, argue that technology can't be regulated. A related argument is: "Punish the bad actors, not the technology."

Argue that the proposal limits consumer choice. Mention that, after all, you are a consumer too.

It's time to invest a little bit of money in your campaign. Hire a professor to write something supporting your position that has enough of a patina of legitimacy to fool reporters. George Mason University, which is well positioned near Washington, is a great place to find crackpots who will support your case.

Argue that the proposal shows a lack of understanding of the industry:

(If you employ this card, don't volunteer any information about the industry.)

Threaten that the proposal will cause the industry to leave the state:

No one with a brain believes that argument, so you'll probably have to move on to a market posture argument. So, if there's a bear market, argue that the proposal is untimely because the economy is a "finely-tuned engine," and that Congress is at best an "inexperienced mechanic."

You know what to say if we're not in a bear market:

If you still haven't killed whatever proposal is vexing you, it's time to break out the high value cards. Almost any proposal can be read to be some sort of due process violation. So make an appeal to business civil liberties and inflate your unlikely likelihood of litigation success:

Another popular one is to argue that the proposal will result in the government competing against the private sector. No one likes that, except for people who like things like public schools. So argue:

If you're working on the state level, tell the staffers that the issue is being addressed at the federal level:

If you're working on the federal level, you know what to say.

By now, it's time for the really big guns. Time to play the Joker: Give money to the leadership. That way, the proposal might not even get a vote.

As an industry lobbyist, you must stop the establishment of "private rights of action." This isn't hard, because everyone likes to deride plaintiff's attorneys. Be sure to mention that if there is a right to sue, it will result in meritless litigation.

Proposal will create a "patchwork" of compliance requirements.

Alternatively:

If you're feeling bold:

By now, things are getting desperate. It's time to retreat to the last (or first) refuge for cowards: patriotism. Be sure to deride Europe and talk about how it's impossible to do business there, whether or not you've even been there.

And the related card:

Proposal will cost jobs. Foretell gruesome effects.

If you know the law is about to pass, make sure that it has no substantive protections, and that all it gives is notice to individuals of business practices. You can go back and replay the 8 of Clubs (George Mason) and find an academic who will argue that all consumers need is notice of a particular practice, and then replay the 6 of Spades (market will remedy all problems). Amen.

On one hand, you want to preach the benefits of the free flow of information to consumers and the economy. On the other, you don't want information to be too free. For instance, what if a pesky legislator wants you to disclose information about security breaches? There is an importance balance here that you need to explain: information that benefits your company is good. Information that embarrasses your company is bad. And because there is so much bad information about your company, publication of it would overwhelm consumers and cause confusion.

Argue that the proposal will limit anti-fraud, law enforcement, or anti-terrorism efforts.

Finally, when nothing is left, you can always argue that the proposal will cause the industry to lose money: