Slashdot Mirror
Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy
jeffy124 writes: "Beginning Feb 15, a new Vermont consumer protection law takes effect requiring companies doing business with people in VT to require opt-in before they can sell/share that customer's personal information. Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers."
Ya, all sorts of horrible things happen to me when companies can't sell my personal information. :)
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
What kind of legal actions are available for consumers who have been targeted by corporations who choose to violate opt-in laws? Does this apply to only coporations within state?
:)
Yes, maybe I should do my research, but I'm busy doing research for other things. Maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time here too!
-- I'll cut you up so bad, you'll wish I'd never cut you up so bad!
oddly i am in a whole bunch of "opt-in" solicitation services who send me bungloads of email everyday. i dont recall opting in fFor a single one of them, but that sure hasn't stopped them.
I consider this a point for all the citizens in Vermont. This makes it just a little harder to get personal information from businesses. Granted the information is still out there, but this is a step in the right direction.
Can't they do some broad consumer review asking how we, the consumers, feel about being hurt by this? That way we can all say, "Yes it hurts; but getting a little dutch rub from Vermont law is preferable to being boiled in oil by corparate if(screw customer=makemoney) then exec(screw customer) policy . . ."
I guess States don't have the right to protect their citizens' privacy? Or is that something the federal government bears full responsibility for?
What with web services becoming all the rave these
days, an opt-in law seems like a good step for
helping with privacy issues.
Of course, enforcement will likely be difficult...
But anyway, I hope to see more such laws.
It'll hurt consumers? Man. The complaint is so bogus as to be laughable and embarassing. So what if I miss out on another FANTABULOUS offer for the AMAZING X-10 CAMERA!?!
The breathtaking thing is that the selling of a person's PERSONAL information was, according to standard, opt-out prior to this. As if anybody would choose to receive more ads in their day-to-day life, when asked face-to-face.
I can't wait until this lawsuit is taken out back and beaten to a pulp. If we're lucky the issue will get some media coverage, and public opinion will be strong enough to squish out unwanted, intrusive advertising in more states than one.
Kudos to whoever's writing the laws in Vermont. They're choosing for once to benefit the public interest, rather than the typical bend-over for businesses.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Is that people who run/work/clean businesses are also consumers. It's very likely that they understand mass marketing/solicitation benefits have on their companies, and as such, are unlikely to mind it too much.
this might be a silly point. but does this law actually carry any real weight? see, you technically Opt-In fFor your phone number and address to be listed in the phone book. that is what most people think of when you think of 'personal info'.
beyond that, your email address is tracked at any site you login to. you have again opted in. you very commonly sign away any other information which a company might way. such as with a product registration (usually optional), or a 'shopping club' at the grocery store.
dont get me wrong. sounds like a good bill to pass. but does it actually *DO* anything?
Sure it'll raise the cost of bulk emails..
Getting together a list of people that actually want to get something takes time, and a little effort.
Just like putting an envelope in the mail raises the cost of sending junk mail that way.
Why on earth should the ISPs and users downloading more and more spam ever day have to shoulder the cost of businesses 'targetting' them, trying to sell stuff that's largely not wanted anyway, and only interferes with trying to enjoy one's email quietly.
I have two email accounts unusable now because of spam accumulation over the years from harvesters.
That cost to me is rather great. And I don't make money like corporations.. I think it's about time they shouldered the cost for once, instead of trying to sue because they don't have it as easy as they used to, and they're now actually told they can only sell to people that want to go and get their product. Radical idea that.. Who'd ever have thought that people would actually have the brains to figure out they want to buy something and actually go looking, instead of you jamming their email box every day with cajoles and other annoyances.
Malk
"Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers."
Ah yes, the industry lobbies once again coming to the rescue of the all important and most loved consumer. If they are out to protect the consumer why are they trade groups? If my company was a member of this trade group that seems dedicated to the cause of protecting the consumer I'd withdraw my membership and ask for my money back!
the funny thing is that they claim that this law will raise the price of doing business... they actually don't CARE that thousands of people gets put on mailinglists that FORCES them to get boring and uninteresting crap in their mailboxes.
that's neoliberalism for you. don't care about your peers.
Looks like a fish, drives like a fish, steers like a cow.
Seems similar to Canada's FOIP act. Maybe it has to do with Vermont's proximity to Canada that they learned from us so quickly :)
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
besides being offtopic, the parent is also a dumb joke. mod appropriatey and disregard.
Now don't get me wrong - I'm a total privacy advocate (ok, some would say nut), and I don't agree with these morons, but in a certain sense they are both correct and incorrect.
1) Correct: You don't have any expectation of privacy in the *ADDRESS* of the person you are corresponding with. You *DO* have an expectation of privacy with the contents of the envelope (let's not even go near postcards). In fact, the USPS has been known to photograph the outside of the envelopes for DECADES of people they want to learn more about, but don't have a warrant for just yet...
2) Incorrect: I do not concur that my surfing habits are 'public'. There's nothing public about the sites I choose to visit on the Net. This is my own damn business, and too many incorrect assumptions could be drawn from stalking me on the Net. If you have probable cause that I'm committing some crime (like I bought 5000 bags of fertilizer and 2000 gallons of diesel and 1000 pounds of aluminum powder and 500 pounds of pink dye plus a case of blasting caps) - then STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY LIFE.
Now, given that these two camels really want to get their noses underneath the tent so they can collapse the whole thing in the name of 'security', here's what we do:
1) Encrypt everything. Use anonymous chaining remailers. Base your email address upon a key which changes at least every day, if not every minute. Something along the lines of my dear departed anon.penet.fi
2) Use a different scheme to encrypt the contents of the message. Use digital signatures. At least 4096 bit encryption - more if you and your recipients can stand it.
3) Use encryption. Use a dual proxy scheme. Proxy 1 is behind your firewall. Whatever you key into your browser get's encrypted by the proxy and passed to an anonymous recipient proxy (one of many chosen at pseudo-random). Anonymous recipient proxy decrypts the info, hits the site, returns the data. There's some key management and exchange issues, differential traffic analysis issues to accomodate, and some other cryptographic goodies, but if enough people do this - it'll totally fuck up the tracking... Check out the AT&T research paper on "Crowds"...
I for one believe that what those terrorist bastards did was a heinous act beyond belief. However, it is not worthy of my blood-won freedoms. Rather the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Find every terrorist, expel them into space, and DON'T TREAD ON ME!
This whole opt-out deal sounds totally reasonable and something the people really want. Nice going Vermont!
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
What about the thousands of trees that won't get sent to Vermont residents in the form of snail-mail spam? That should lower costs.
As a consumer, the corps can rest assured that I do indeed want to be "hurt" by a law that says I don't have to go to all the trouble of sending in opt-out mail to companies that think the details of my personal life are their property to do with as they please. Fsck those fscking fsckers.
Recently, my phone company sent out a mailer describing how to opt out of their planned data sharing scheme. The long and short was that I could dial an 800 number, but that information was so buried in fine-print legalese that I really doubt that many people who otherwise would have opted out actually did. Shenanigans like that are precisely what Vermont is addressing with this law. Let's all think a good thought for Vermont's AG staff on this one.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
I've asked it before and I'll ask it again:
why is it that when the corps want to make money off of our data that "information wants to be free" -- but when the public wants to trade/make money off of their data that we need stringent IP protections??
And don't tell me that it's because there is a cottage industry bult around violating our privacy, but no cottage industry built around unauthorized copying. If the legal status of the two kinds of info were reversed, so would the industries attached to them.
I'm waiting for one of these data mining companies to patent "their" info and stick the BSA on anyone who copies it without their permission.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Raises Costs: Sounds like they view easy profits as an entitlement, and expect the state to pass corporate welfare legislation rather than consumer protection legislation.
Hurts Consumers: Mebe we should ask the consumers about this instead? (Why the heck do they suppose the legislature passed the law in the first place?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
AAAAAHHHHHH, The sweet smell of sanity is in the air - and it's not even spring yet!
Here's something you can do to fight snail mail spam in your state. When you receive a piece of junk mail, open it and take out the pre-paid postage envelope. Now open a second piece of junk mail and take it's contents and stuff it into the first pre-paid envelope. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat with every piece of junk mail you get. Then take them and mail them back to the fuckers who sent them.
:-)
Think about it, they are paying twice to get 0 results.
In the Chicago area, the two major grocery store chains (Jewel and Dominicks) have proven that it doesn't take much to push people to opt-in to anti-privacy "prefered"/"fresh values" discount cards. To get the card, the customer must sign off on accepting a certain amount of "information" to be collected. Each time you shop without the discount card then the person running the cash register in the check-out line will usually ask you *twice* (sometimes even a third time--"HELLO... I SAID NNNNOOOOO already" *smile sweatly*) for it to confirm you really do not have one and then give the require comment on how easy it is to get one and the savings can really add up. To make it even more offensive, once you do get a card the check-out person is required to read directly from the reciept how much the discount card "saved" you. It is always read in the form of "you saved four dollars and sixty-three cents with your prefered card." If they are going to insist on telling me about it, I rather they said something useful that wasn't already on the reciept about it like: "You sold your privacy for a 4.3% percent discount and then the required 8.5% tax was applied." I wondered how many people would continue playing their game if they realized that the discount provided almost never exceeds the local tax amount!
Obviously this will be a huge victory for consumers and their privacy rights and not entirely that unfair to businesses. IANAL, but as near as I can tell, this does not block corporations from sending Snail Mail or Email solicitations, but only blocks them from sharing your information (without your knowledge) to a third-party.
What type of enforcement does this provide against International Agencies? (ie. A corporation with off-shore facilities for the computers and either US housed facilities) IMHO it just seems as though there would be too many loopholes for corporations to be able to get through this (What if a company sells information to non-US-based Advertising Agency?)
In theory this would be great legislation, but unless something like this becomes Federal Law with provisions for enforcement outside the US (Through the WTO or whatever--not very likely) I doubt it will deter corporations as much as the bill originally intended.
One of the suggestions for companies in file-sharing businesses has always been to move off-shore. I might be mistaken, but I thought I had read how they have been cracking down in this as well. If not, than what prevents a business from doing the same thing? What would stop an off-shore company from collecting our information from businesses around the world and nailing us with solicitations anyway?
Just my $.02 on the issue, I could be blatantly misinformed with my understanding of this.
oh... ouch! heh heh
...but how can restricting spam and other unwanted junk email "raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers"?
If that's your way of conducting business you're in the wrong ballpark alltogether.
Anataka suki desu. Itsumo. Itsumademo.
When I got my phone connected, they mis-spelt my last name. I have never seen my last name spelt like that ANYWHERE else. /var/log/messages
// my place of work) were related?
I am in charge of our mail server at work (Slackware 8 beast running sendmail, squid, mysql, imap, etc...). Recently I did the following search:
grep unknown
I was surprised to see my an error message regarding an unknown user, which consisted of my first initial, and last name - MIS-SPELT exactly as Telstra had, @mycompany.com.au. So someone obviously got my first & last names from Telstra. They informed my that 'anyone' can get this from the phone book or http://www.whitepages.com.au. Fair enough. But how did they link it to my place of work? Telstra swear that they don't have any record of where I (or anyone else) work. So is this Australia Post, ASIO, or what? I make a point of NOT telling people where I work, as I understand that if this information gets into the wrong hands, people can make life 'difficult' for you.
Any thought on how these 2 (Telstra's records of my name
We have this in Europe for some time now.
As a consumer I like it : no more (supposedly) unsolicited mail.
All european websites have to have the little box that says : please click here IF YOU WANT us to send you mail.
Usually a seperate box also for 'May we sell your address to other parties too'
This is covered in the UK for years with the DP act.
Also we can 'opt out' of junk mail (the physical stuff) and junk phone calls (buy your windows from us etc) by signing up with a couple of lists.
Its great I never get any junk mail, well Ok very rarely, and I never get cold called on the phone to buy stuff.
Saves me time, saves the postman's back
all in all about time you guys in the 'state got it.
you forgot one:
"Jon Katz"
"Raging child molestor with his head in his ass"
And for those who feel pesky quality-of-life laws and regulations cost business too much money, I'm sure New Jersey can accomodate.
in the case of corporations, who aren't people but merely abstractions. they can be censored, without violating anyone's rights.
Also, the issue isn't censorship but ownership and rights of ownership -- if you read my previous post. Most of us slashdotters don't think there should be no IP laws. Just more of a balance. I'm trying to point out the scales are tipped too far.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
the status of ownership and what rights that gives the user. When I copy -- or even buy -- digital data belonging to the RIAA, I still don't own it. I have very few rights -- which are being chipped away. Certainly no right to amalgamate CD's of the stuff, index the data thereon, and sell it as my own. Hell, I may not even be able to make a backup copy.
But my personal data becomes the property of anyone who can get it. Wether by scouring the web, or paying for it, or just spying on me. I have absolutely no control over it. That's the double standard.
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers.
I'm a bar owner and I've decided the sue the state because not serving beer to juniors makes them unhappy and is hurting my profits.
Over hear in the land of the unfree we already have these protections. We also have some other consumer protections that might be worth having
1) They can't sell your data unless you let them (two whole tick boxes)
2) The data isn't considered a company asset when the
And as for hurting consumers.... bollocks, totally and utter. Reducing SPAM, being in control of your own information. Hell this _is_ what consumers want.
Go Vermont, full credit to some law makers who aren't just in the pockets of big business.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
That's why there is a £500 fine for cold-calling someone on the opt-out list. If I got £500 each time a bloody gas company rang me to suggest I change my supplier (I use about 50 pence of gas a month :-) I would be a rich man. As it is I let them test my phone line each week ;-)
Can you imagine what life would be like if my local grocery stores had to sell me their products? I'd have to go to the store, know what products I needed, wait in line with my neighbors and then have to actually sign a credit card receipt. What a nightmare!
Fortunately, all the local stores automatically deliver the products I don't realize I need and deduct the cost from my checking account. As if I'd actually want to know how much they're taking! That would totally cut into time I'd much rather spend exploring all the special offers I've been getting in my email.
the age is theoretically 18, but you get 14 year olds in pubs and off-licenses ("hey those white kids all look the same to me, none of them have moustaches..."). It's so strange when we hear that Bush's 19yo daughter is in serious trouble for drinking when Blair's 16yo son was found drunk and incapable in the middle of London a year ago... Of course alcoholism itself is no laughing matter but the laws do seem strange.
The population of the whole state is 575,000 people, about the same as Nashville Tenn. With this and other pain in the a$$ laws many businesses will decide the tiny population is not worth the trouble. Any regulation has a cost, that cost is not going to be paid out of corporate profits it will be paid by consumers
Free cell phone tracking
Well, not directly at least. This isn't mandating opt-in for spammers or anything like that. They're talking about sharing personal information. While this may include email addresses, it's MUCH more than that - addresses, buying habits, banking practices, assets, etc. Companies do this all the time, and set "opt-out" policies that generously allow you to tell them to quit sharing whenever you become aware of it, but by then the damage is usually done.
I'm a bit dubious of this case, because it wasn't legislated, a beaureacrat took it upon himself to re-interpret an existing law to say this, so the suit may well have a good point in this particular case. However, it's a great idea, a lot of states have legislation like that pending, and I am urging everyone to do something about this. See if your state has a bill like this pending - if it does, write your representatives and tell them you support it. If not, write them and encourage them to introduce one.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I work for a Worldwide Telecommunications business, and they sell all of thier lists... The interesting part is when your national, and this law applies only to Virginia we will have to opt-out everyone only in Virginia. So that makes it a tad more difficult.. Considering half the time the state information we have for the customer is old, or out of date, or deliberatly inaccurate. despite the extra work this will generate however I think it is a good idea. Personally I jsut wish it was the whole US instead of just Virginia.
Am I lying when I tell you that im telling the truth? Or am I telling the truth when I say that Im lying?
Wow, it amazes me that the companies will publicly go to court to try to force themselves on people.
I only recently learned that my bank was selling my personal information. When I tried to opt-out, I discovered that they have a difficult procedure to do so. Also, I have three accounts, and they expect me to opt-out of each one separately, even though it is the same information.
I would boycott any company that goes to court against opt-in.
Notice the Sybase ad next to the Computerworld article. Will that sell Sybase products, or damage Sybase by annoying potential customers? The overall reality is that companies are often self-destructive in the way they interact with people.
--
Links to respected news sources show that U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence?
Bush's education improvements were
Shockwaves from Bush Speech Ripple around World.
With every article I read about a new law in Vermont, I'm tempted to move. I only live about 20 miles from the Vermont border anyway, and now I find myself wondering whether driving 30-40 miles to school would really be any worse than driving 10...
For once, a government looks out for the interests of its citizens, not those of the corporations. A small victory, but we'll take it.
Tough shit if it makes it harder for them to do business. Time for them to learn that we are not owned by them.
Lawyer: "Excuse me, ma'am, but have you ever received spam before?" Woman: "Yes...I have to delete hundreds of messages a day!" Lawyer: "She's biased! Throw her out!"
No comment.
We in Norway have had this for quite some time, and it works well. Apart from your typical "MAKE $$$$ FAST" and "INCREASE YOUR LENGTH WITH 200%" scams from somelameass@hotmail.com, it works well against (half-)serious companies stuffing your email. Threatening them with fines and imprisonment for up to six months (of course there's a world of difference between the average punishment and the maximum sentence) gets most people thinking...
Kjella
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I got spam yesterday ( yeah, and... ) - it was from a fairly big company - Cingular Wireless.
They claim I opted in, but ( of course ) I didn't:
1. Could someone in Vermont now sue them ?
2. Why does a big company like Cingular still think spam will be good for them ? I for one will now certainly be outspoken against them.
Looks like when I fill out online forms, I will now live in vermont.
Jack Valenti and the MPAA are to technology as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone
Much as I like this sort of law, I wonder if it will pass Constitutional tests sure to be launched by the various industry groups. It could be seen as affecting Interstate Commerce, which would be in violation of the Interstate commerce clause.
Does this sound familiar:
You "Hello, Hello, Hello?"
The phone Silence....maybe some clicking
You again, Hello? Then you realize it is an autodialer and this is an unsolicited sales call. I get one every couple days... Just make it stop!!
My method of fighting back is to simply be an asshole. If you piss enough phone jockeys off, they remember and they don't call back until they get a new guy, and I can usually make the new ones cry. One girl called trying to get me to take a survey and they would put me in a drawing for $25,000 cash. I asked her the odds and how long the survey would take. Then I did a quick calculation out loud for her about how I would have to do so many of these to win, it would take this long, divide that by the $25 thousand, and it came out to like $2/hour. I told her I make a LOT more than that and it wasn't worth my time. She said she just didn't understand why anyone wouldn't want a free chance to win. I told her if she had done well in school and learned math, she would understand, but then she would have gotten a real job and we wouldn't be having the discussion. She cried. (Yeah, I know a lot of you are saying that was cruel and she's only trying to earn a living, but they are STEALING (taking without my permission) my time. Theives are only trying to make a living as well, but I don't give them any breaks either. There are legit ways to make a living, every McDonalds around here is looking for outgoing, friendly people.) It may have been cruel but they had called twice a week for the past 3 weeks, during dinner every night, and I had told them I was on the list and asked them not to call back. That stopped them.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
What the grocery stores did down here near DC(and up near albany) was raise prices on a number of items 10-15% at the same time as instituting the "savings cards". I did get a card but provided a phony address and phone number.
It was a pretty shallow ploy on Giant Supermarkets, but i guess thats what everyone does now.
People may not be aware that they may opt out of a number of company lists and such, but that every time they buy something with their credit cards they are put back on them.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
After VT passed the same sex marriage law recognition thing, there were people opposing it and putting big signs on their lawns reading:
TAKE VERMONT BACK
The folks who supported the decision wouldn't be out done, and started putting signs up which read
TAKE VERMONT FORWARD
I dunno what view this guy was supporting, probably a comment on the whole thing, he had a bumper sticker which read
TAKE VERMONT FROM BEHIND
Maybe the new slogan for this political move could be:
TAKE VERMONT WITH PERMISSION
Krispy Cream is people
Those fucking companies. Now a days you have to pretty much pay to opt-out of things. (ex., being unlisted in the phone book). I just want to know when privacy went from being a right, to a cost?
Just one more point why Vermont is the best place to live...
Companies send junk mail to us because it's a proven way to get people to buy stuff. It obviously generates enough response for it to be profitable business. And I have to wonder about that small portion of the population that actually buys into all the crap - I see them as the problem, not the businesses. If nobody responded to it, and the companies made no money from it then we would eventually see this type of marketing go away.
We should educate the population and make them realize that they are responsible for making junk mail so popular.
Thank god... and from the most liberal of states no less. This is good news, and it can be the tipping weight needed in other state legislatures with this proposed but currently languishing.
I really see how major corporations have any legal leg to stand on in suing the State. I will be curious to read the suit briefs as they are made available. Any comments from the peanut gallery on this?
This can have a great effect of forcing most companies to change their systems... and given the nature of these systems they use for collecting and gathering information, it may just mean that they are forced to not gather and sell this info any longer.
Finally, some good news on Slashdot that isn't either bashing big business or talking about irrelevant computer technologies.
...Lefty the Torch, a New York businessman, is suing the state of New York saying that laws against drugs, gambling, prostitution, and extortion raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers.
Is that the people who clean/work/run businesses are citizens who by definition are "1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation". A "consumer" doesn't even have to be human, it only has to consume goods, services or property.
Looks like Vermont is protecting her citizens, and 'screwing the consumer' (you didn't say it but others did). Good for them I say.
What never ceases to piss me off is the misguided logic that states that whatever is good for a corporation or company is good for the people who work for it or benefit from it (more likely other companies, corporations) and therefor good for the people. Seriously, are we talking about trickle-down freedom here? Because quite frankly, if I lose anymore of my freedom, personal information, or rights to a corporation because it "benefits everyone", I'm going to throw up and join a militia in Montana.
Ctimes2
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
Now...anyone know how I can become an honorary resident of Vermont? :-)
Reminder: find a new sig
I'd never, in a million years, expect such enlightened sanity from any government in the US. I think I'm going to find those responsible and send them thank you emails (If I was living in Vermont I would send them money and chocolate).
I'd sure like to know exactly who it is that is fighting Vermont's new privacy rules. I just want to identify the enemy.
If I read it correctly, the businesses affected are those regulated by Vermont's Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, and there are five "industry trade groups" fighting it.
The American Council of Life Insurers was identified as one of the groups. Unfortunately, the page on their site that lists the member companies isn't working (may be slashdotted).
The article also quotes a spokesman from Citigroup, Inc., which consists of Citibank, Travelers, Smith Barney, Primerica, Citigroup Private Bank, Diners Club International, Banamex, Citi Insurance, Citi Financial, Citi Capital, Citigroup Corporate & Investment Bank, Citiroup Asset Management and Citi Mortgage.
Anybody know who the rest are?
TyZone
"Just because something helps the country economically doesn't mean it should be done. The ends do not justify the means."
An unregulated economy is a slavering mindless beast that feeds on artificial scarcity, slavery, and human misery in general. Granted, the economy also provides a means of creating and distributing wealth. However, the People should be master of this particular 'beast' and keep it on a short leash lest it forget who's in charge.
What if people took all the polititians email addresses from their web sites and put them in to every "win big" and other sites that you know sell and spam/abuse the information. If the lawmakers offices are continually flooded with spam and junk mail maybe then they would concider it worth stopping.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
If anything, the lawsuit is what's going to raise costs for everyone.
Internet users all over the world should file a class action suit against The DMA, all email marketers, spammers and everyone else who treats online privacy as an extension of their marketing departments.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
The post office will just throw it out. (However i did mail a rock to a friend of mine.)
l
;)
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_356.htm
Cecil here is probably one of the only people in media I trust.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Its about time the default was opt-in instead of opt-out.
Where do you want to be, What are you doing to get there.
if there are nay job openings up there for me...
Best Slashdot Co
Not Virginia. Vermont is the home of damnyankees while Virginia is the home of True Southern Gentlemen.
Best Slashdot Co
I know Senator Wellstone is a big proponent of this opt-in at the federal level.
h tm l
But I recently heard that some of our reps are looking at passing a similar law at the state level.
This was the only thing I could find discussing it at this time...
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/1201637.
I heard some of the comments made with regards to the GLB act. They lobbied to have it worded the way it was, specifically to make it harder for the consumer to opt-out of data sharing. The more difficult it was, the less likely consumers would act.
So I say do the same with opt-in. The more difficult it is, the less likely it is that I'll get 4 phone calls on Saturday morning asking to sell me crap.
The Vermont law is a tribute to the good that the state administration can do if they actually listen to the public opinion and set aside the "Industry" influence.
People want to have the choice, and if you don't get an answer then it's unfair to conclude that they want what the industry wants, which is to share their information. It's like if I call and leave a message on your answering machine asking you if I can borrow your car, then recieving no answer, conclude that I can borrow it because I want that answer and you didn't say no.
Honestly, given the "choice" to let them distribute the info or not, I'd choose not.
The problem is that they make it harder to choose that. It's not like I have to send in a letter or call them wither way, I only have to work harder to make the choice they don't want me to make.
If they had a small box at the bottom of the form you have to sign that says "check one: Share info with other businesses _ , Do not share info with other businesses _ " then I truely thing most people would choose not to share. Having really made a choice in this senareo.
Two simple checkboxes that one must be checked, at the bottom of a form that you sign is much more of a choice than having to fill out a seperate letter countermanding a descreet sub-paragraph in miniscule text on the back of a form that you had to sign in order to get their service.
In concluding, most people are forgeetting that the opt-in law will have no giant fundamental change in their computer programs, they just have to set all of the Vermont accounts to "opted-out" and then if they opt-in change it back. no big hassle. They already have that checkbox in the program.
And with the money they save from NOT sending the flyers and other spam/junk mail to people that would have opted out automatically they would be more than breaking even and not as they put it in the article: "...hike business costs and hurt customers." Oh they charge sooo much more because they can't sell my personal information to other companies to send me spam. oh I'm so hurt, I get less spam. Oh Please.
k done ranting.
Vote for this if you get a chance!
Opt-in as standard is GOOD!
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
Let's see....
[X] opt-in law
[X] default concealed carry OK law
I'm packing up my stuff and moving to Vermont! I like the idea of a state that puts the people first.
"Population 1,656"
"Information wants to be free" in the same sense that "water wants to flow downhill".
And, yes, IP laws are every bit as environmentally damaging and profitable for a few as hydroelectric dams.
--
E_NOSIG
Most people (myself included) tend to opt-out of everything whever the opportunity is given out of principle. We're all so sick of all the advertisements we get sent to us that we'll opt out of everything to try to minimize it, even though we might be a little interested in, say, what WinAmp may be up to lately.
I think that, once people are done basking in the freedom of having little to no junk mail, some people may begin to opt in to one or two things here and there. And then the people who send out these ads can be confident that the recipients actually want it.
Easy:
1. Screen your calls with answering machine
2. At the beginning of your message, place the three-tone "out of service" signal. You can download it from phonelosers.org
3. After a few weeks, relax because all telemarketers think your phone's disconnected. It's worked wonderfully for me!
A friend of mine works for the USPS, and she turned me on to it. It helps pay her salary, plus those business reply envelopes are expensive. She said the key was to get enough crap in the envelope that it weighed over an ounce.
As a bonus, I made little flyers on bright paper: "This complete waste of your time and money was brought to you by [name, address] who would like to be removed from your mailing lists." I'd wrap a flyer around an ounce or so of ripped up paper and stuff that in the envelope.
I viewed it as a lark, just a fun thing to do when I got home every day. But you know, after 6 months of it, my junk mail dropped dramatically. From 3 or 5 pieces a day to just 1 or 2 a week. In short, I'd strongly recommend this to anyone plagued by direct mail.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
What this means is that the spammers are now crawling out from under their slime covered logs into the light of day.
I say now that they have identified themselves we launch a class action suit against the lot of them for every second of time wasted sifting through spam. For all the hours of time wasted because you accidentally deleted that important work email. For all the hours of wasted time compsing email to customers explaining what spam is, why they got it, and why they can do nothing about it...
Anyone know a good lawyer?
the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head
I can understand that to an extent. I almost threw out some of those "privacy notices" and I was looking for them! The companies sure didn't want to draw any attention to the possibility of opting out. I had to do phone calls, and postal mail, and sometimes I had to do it once for each account with the same company, and all in all it was a major hassle.
But still, I would have thought that more like 10% would have opted out. Maybe they were too busy sorting through junk mail and spam...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Are we allowed to sue whenever a companies actions raise the cost of us 'doing business (buying a product)' and hurt consumers?
After all, it seems like we should have ample reason to sue the RIAA (large markup on CD's, hurts consumers) or the DVD people.
Double standards are fun.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Just like Microsoft had the best of Joe and Jane Doe inmind when it used monopolistic bullying to get their OS installed to every computer. Or how the oil companies (with president Bush as a spokes person)have the best of the consumers in mind when they dumped the Kioto agreement.
How nice..
"There is a terrorist behind every bush"
When I was in college (more years ago than I care to mention), those "Public Interest Research Groups" used an opt-out for funding. Yep... CalPIRG and MoPIRG got my money automatically from the university (UCSC and Wash. U, respectively) unless I explicitly opted out.
So much for the "Public Interest".
Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
Europe has fairly strong privacy laws.
Canada has passed a privacy law (applies to Federal Agencies now, will apply to everyone by (I think) end of 2002).
I am more familiar with the gist of Canada's law, which goes:
Must tell you what they are going to do with the information when they ask for it;
Must get explicit permission from you to do anything other than what they said the first time;
Automatically applies to any information given to a 3rd party or info which crosses a provincial or federal boundary.
A single consumer complaint automatically triggers an investigation;
It is backed by some pretty stiff penalties; huge fines and provisions to jail company directors.
It is a crime to even ASK for a Social Insurance Number (ie Social Security #) unless authorized by legislation (Bank, Gov't Agency, Employer). You can refuse-I know one person who has never given the number out, even on Credit Card Applications, and yes, he gets his cards.
I don't know about Maine, but recently the EU granted Canada's law to be sufficently protective of consumer's rights that Canada & Canadian Firms are "trusted" entities with regard to European Privacy Laws.
Maryland has something similiar where people can choose to not let the public records accessible to companies or other indivials.
It made my life alot easiler I got less calls and less time on my hands worrying wheither or not someone was profiling me
Or maybe they could argue that it is thumbnail sized when they print it on the envelope. :)
I'm seriously considering copyrighting my identity. And while I'm at it I think I'll encrypt it as well.
Thus, if anybody uses it without my explicit permission in any context I get to sue them using copyright laws.
And if they try to hack my identity I can use the DCMA on them..
Take that...
Caution: Contents under pressure
This new law is not about email opt-ins, under the new law companies can still spam VT residents into oblivion without opt-in. I feel your pain on spam, but that's got nothing to do with this law, and it makes your post offtopic (by accident).
The law prohibits financial companies from sharing information they have about you with other companies without your consent.
It does not stop them from sending you email, junkmail, and telemarketing calls themselves. It does stop them from sharing the contact info they with their "trusted business partners" (read: anyone willing to pay money for an address list) unless they have your permission.
So as best I can tell, the biggest impact is if you live in VT, your bank (or other financial service provider) can't sell lists of addresses of people with "accounts in good standing" to credit card companies. This removes a profit center from the bank, causing them to up service fees to compensate, but also removes unwanted credit card offers from your mailbox and phone service.
-Matt
Because it's an indication of being less *owned* than some other places.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
1: Our Senator Jeffords got fed up with how far the Republican Right was going and became and Independent.
2: Only Socialist Congressman in the US.
3: First state to pass a civil unions bill.
4: No billboards!
5: Last state in the country to get a Walmart (we've got two or three now).
6: Both open-carry and permitless concealed-carry of firearms permitted (I hate guns, but I hate gun laws more).
7: Last state to adopt a flag-burning resolution (who the fuck needs it).
8: Senator Leahy.
9: Citizen legislature
10: Smallest state capitol in the US (though, IIRC, more lawyers per capita than any other capitol).
11: Road salt
Okay, downsides...
1: Clouds.
2: Cold.
3: Clueless SUV drivers (oh, you got those too?)
4: Did I mention clouds?
Now, if we could just make it illegal for telemarketers to auto-dial every number (including unlisted), make it illegal for voter registration lists to be bought, and force marketers to reveal, upon our request, where they got our name, I'd be far happier. Oh, and not allow the phone co to CHARGE us for an unlisted number.
Go Vermont!
DoC
And that's exactly what companies might do. Instead of adapting systems to meet the state's rules, they are warning that Vermont residents may be excluded en masse from the kinds of offers and information that data sharing allows.
:). That's one of the funniest things I have ever read!
Ooooo, I bet they're trembling in their boots in Vermont! Who wants to miss outon all those special offers?
These people (marketers) need to get out more. They think threatening NOT to send stuff to people is... well.. a threat (giggle, chortle, snort!
Edith Keeler Must Die
I used to help keeping the cost of stamp down. I received tons of junk mails everyday, with the reply envelop that says "no stamp needed if mailed in the US". So, I inserted a couple of junk papers (yeah, from other junk mailers, of course, and with my name/code/bar code, etc removed). On top of that, I added in some hummingbird poo from my backyard, or some crashed snails/slug, or just some glueish thing (But don't put those from when you blow your nose, just in case they do DNA matching :).
I'm having a hard time imagining how those people react tothat, when they open the envelop to process it, especially when it's printed on the envelop to process it immediately and it is urgent.
But I stop doing this after all this 911 anthrax scare. It was fun though.
Increase service fees, huh? At least that's a behavior I can measure, and can choose to leave one credit card company for another with more reasonable rates. It's harder to find out if one card company is more responsible for spamming me than another.
I have an idea. Now, most spam you can't reply to, therefore, if sendmail were to check incoming mail for replyability i.e. connect to reply to, check name, close connection if mail for reply is OK. Couldn't we trash some spam at the mail handler? Obviously we'd want this to be an option - some people need those spams. Crazy idea? Bad news bandwidth wise? Comments?
"warning??" As in, warning them that they might not be hassled by telemarketers, that they might not be getting fat wads of offers for cheap electronics and grotty personal items with their credit card billse, that they might not be getting spammed from here to Sunday if they make the mistake of giving their e-mail to their financial services provider?
My questions is, is ANYONE buying this particularly dumb line of reasoning... that consumers are afraid of being cut off from great offers by opting out of having their personal information sold? Is ANYONE out there really jazzed about any kind of unsolicited selling? Jeeze!
I used to be a salesman at a Brick and Mortar building contractor. It was all opt-in. Using opt-out was unthinkable. The first time I heard of opt-out rules being ruled valid I was dumbfounded.
Here's what opt-in worked like at my old place: customer comes to me, gives me their address, and I deliver a product. Six months later I give them a friendly phone call to see how things are working out.
Imagine what it would be like if I could have done opt-out marketing at my old building contractor: I go next door to the bank and pay the manager for a list of names and addresses of folks applying for home loans. I give this list to my phoners. Pretty soon I have compiled a database of everyone in town, including their salaries, credit reports, names of children, time they eat dinner (so I can call), etc. Everything about everyone is available from me. Legally.
What happens when one of them gets pissed? I simply say "I'm sorry sir, you need to opt-out. Here's how. Come down to our store and fill out a form. So now he's off my list. But he's still on the list I sold to every other business in town. He has to opt out of each and every one of them individually.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy
I read this and thought "What do the Marines care what Vermont does?"
You can at least stop phone solicitors from calling you in Oregon now.
.com, they are being contracted by the Oregon state government to do this.
You go to http://www.ornocall.com and pay ~$6.50 to get on a list that gets published quaterly. If a solicitor calls you, they get a hefty fine.
Note, that the calls will stop, depending on when you register. I registered in December and made it onto the January 2002 list.
Where I literally used to get 3-4 phone solicitor calls a night, I now get absolutely no calls whatsoever (In fact, I'm begging for someone to call, so I can fry their ass).
It works well, and while it's crap that I have to pay to get phone solicitors to stop, it's a step in the right direction. Besides a $6.50 fee, with an annual renewal fee of $3.00 isn't so bad.
Also note, that while that web address is a
Say hello once. If you hear nothing, hang up. Do not say hello a second time.
If it was a real person that really needed to talk to you, they will call back.
If it was a an autodialer, it will not likely call you back.
When you say hello more than once, it's like responding to a spam that says
'click here to remove'. You know how that doesn't work.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
If only all states would follow suit, we might actually have something.
Russian Russian Russian RussianDollSig DollSig DollSig DollSig
Sure you will have to opt in to be legally placed on the snail spam lists. But, it is just a matter of time for the companies that provide required services to start requiring their customers to "opt in" in order to be allowed to purchase those required services.
It will be trivial for companies to force or trick people into opt'ing in. Just wait until you move and want phone service at your new place of residence? The phone company won't sell it to you unless you "opt in" to their mailing list that they rent out to anybody with a dollar. Same thing for a bank account or credit card.
By contrast, Verizon recently decided to spam everybody and give them an opt-OUT. Let me tell you what it took to opt out (assuming it even worked!)
AAAUUUUGGGGHHHH!
I may have got some details wrong but I'm not making this up- it was that bad. THANK YOU, Vermont, state I live in, for doing something to control these freaking maniacs... today the banking people, maybe tomorrow Verizon...
Wait a minute. If this information that they are SELLING is my PERSONAL info, then they are selling an item which belongs to me, without my permission or a contract from me. Isn't that the same thing that the RIAA is all up in arms about with the P2P stuff? Sale/Distribution of property (in their case, music, in our case, personal information) with out the legal consent or reimbursement of the original owner.
I say we start a multi-state class action lawsuit against any business that sells personal information.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
I'm probably asking the wrong people here, because I'm sure most of the slashdot crowd thinks that corps being upset about this is ridiculous.
But if the corps are planning to sue, exactly what laws can they sue under? Is there really some branch of law that says the gov't has to take responsibility if change in policy hurts any segment of industry?
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Information does not want to be free. It wants to be sold. It's just easier to copy. :-)
My beef isn't that there are different types of data, but rather that my personal information is not for sale at all. But for some reason, businesses not only use and copy it freely, but sell it without giving me a cut of the profits. It's my information. No different than artists feel when someone copies their mp3's.
Perhaps it's time I copyright my private data and charge companies to fill out their customer registration cards?
At least in the USA, corporations are legal citizens, and can make contracts with others. Maybe it's time I have people sign a contract in order to obtain information about me. If enough people make this difficult or impossible to manage effectively, they'll just stop.
Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental.
True, Libertarians want minimal government, but please don't construe that as being in favor of spamming. I personally regard spamming as theft (albeit extremely petty theft in any instance, but typically perpetrated in millions of counts at once.)
I'm skeptical of the ability of government to solve the spamming problem, since the mere act of prohibiting an action rarely causes it to end. Spamming requires a technical solution.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
They complain that they would have to consider all of Vermont as having decided to "opt out" because it's too expensive to have two systems based on where the customer is located. The solution is obvious-- use the "opt in" system everywhere.
Corps of Engineers is unhappy?
Marine Corps unhappy?
AmeriCorps ?
Enron scandal is bringing home how bogus the
Corps can be.
People are fed up and hopefuly won't take it
any more.
Oh man! You know, if I lived in VT, I'd really miss all that wonderful junk (snail) mail, those fun calls from telemarketers in the middle of meals (or especially when they call right when I'm expecting an important call, and they won't shut up and get off the line), and especially that really interesting spam from people I don't know about stuff I really don't care about! *sniff* I feel so sorry for those people up there. Life will become so boring for them.
*Sigh* Ghad, I wish I lived in VT!! Why can't we have good laws like that down here? All we get are anti-drinking laws. Jeez.
Another reason why Vermont is the best place
to live is that they do not require any kind
of permit to carry a concealed handgun.
I'm betting either Oregon or Washington state.
Any other guesses?
If it ain't opt-in, it ain't gonna be legal.
Never forget that democracy means we have the power and that corporations are NOT people.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
Buy online from Vermont companies - and in the comment section point out how glad you are that they're opt-in.
If you go to a non-Vermont commercial website, send a comment that you don't buy from non-opt-in companies and you wish their state would take Vermont's lead.
If you get opt-out email or other UCE spam from a company, find the emails of the corporate execs and sign them up to all the lists you can find.
Remember, you the consumer are king.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
the companies that whine over this can blow it out their collective corporate asses.
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Peru, VT 05152.
Fuck those spammers!
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?
Wow, a state with good consumer laws, civil rights for gay people, and a generally intelligent governor.
Too bad I can't find anywhere in that state to attend college.
"Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
In Europe, personal information about people is considered the property of the respective *people*. Companies have to ask before they can use it. Normally, companies may only use the data you give them for the purpose you intended (like shipping good to you) and for keeping their own customer record, nothing else.
IANAL. I may have gotten this wrong.
It is the US view of the matter that is so screwed, and Europe and US governments are having quite some differences over that topic.
Bulk mailing friend of mine says the USPO doesn't charge for a business reply envelope if it comes back empty. Their mail scanner just chuck 'em into the trash.
So, stuff 'em full. They pay by the ounce.
Say hello, then wait quietly for someone to start saying hi... THEN promptly hang up.
The autodialers are rigged to screen for no-answers, bad numbers, and suspected answering machines. If you hang up too soon they won't connect a marketer. Once they've switched in a zombie they allocate a time slot for a ritual reading of the speel. Hang up at t+1 second and you screw the flow.
I tried everything to get these people to stop ringing my phone 4-6 times a day. I was to the point of thinking home telephones had outlived their usefulness. Then, a friend turned me onto this and the calls have slowed, dramatically.
Methanex, a Canadian company, is suing the U.S. gov't for $970 million because a California law against their carcinogenic gasoline additive is going to cost them money.
Metalclad, a U.S. company, has already won $16 million from Mexico because a community rejected their cancer-causing toxic waste dump.
These suits, being part of an international treaty, are not subject to national laws for appeal.
In other words, if your product is banned because it kills peoplesue the gov't for making your product illegal. Imagine cigarette companies being able to sue places that enact anti-smoking laws. (Hell, that just might happen, even.) Of course, we're talking actual frickin' toxic waste here, not just cigarettes. What a wonderful world we live in.
P.S.: Note that this is an article written by a prominent Republican, while I am not Republican by a long shot. I don't care, because it's a good article! :)
In other words, if your product is banned because it kills people, you can actually sue the gov't for making your product illegal. Imagine cigarette companies being able to sue places that enact anti-smoking laws. (Hell, that just might happen, even.) Of course, we're talking actual frickin' toxic waste here, not just cigarettes. What a wonderful world we live in.
P.S.: Note that this is an article written by a prominent Republican, while I am not Republican by a long shot. I don't care, because it's a good article! :)
How do I get all my snail mail forwarded via Vermont? I'd pay good money to have a Vermont address while I live in New Jersy if it mens I can sue or screw with any junk mailers who send me stuff.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Currently there is an american company suing the Canadian government for the same thing. with any luck it is the same additive. The problem, and the reason the lawsuits can and should exist? No proper study has proven the effects. Ie: neither government has had a study done because both 'know' it is harmfull. So they won't pay for a study of somehting so obvious. Hence: No study to use in court to show it is harmfull.
Even though it is.
Where your banker actually goes to jail just for admitting that you have an account with them.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk