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."
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.
I guess States don't have the right to protect their citizens' privacy? Or is that something the federal government bears full responsibility for?
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!
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?
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.
The difference is that with postal mail, the advertiser bears the cost. With electronic mail, the recipient does. If you have a great product that will help me INCREASE my EJACULATION by 6000%!! then by all means you're free to try to get me to buy it -- but at your expense, not mine. Unless, that is, I have been in touch with you before and been so pleased by your FREE! and LEGAL! DVD COPYING! and CABLE! DESCRAMBLER! that I've given you blanket permission to let me know of any other miracle products you have to offer.
Don't get so caught up in treating online and offline businesses "equally" and "fairly" that you neglect to see that when aspects of their conduct are different it is altogether right and proper to treat them differently.
Goddammit, people. This ain't rocket science.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
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.
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.
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.
And since tech-savvy users know how to alter their e-mail address and switch between temporary free accounts without too much disruption, the opt-in vs. opt-out argument really becomes a fight over new (and often ignorant) internet users.
Not really - even tech-savvy users can't change their business or role accounts. I receive e.g. about 100 pieces of spam a day on webmaster at bero dot evenintelligentspambotsshouldntseethis dot org.
It's similar for official contact addresses like security at spambotgotohell dot redhat dot com (which we can't change either...) - and address filters really aren't an option for those either.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
I don't recall seeing anything in the article that said it didn't apply to snail mail.
Of course, if they didn't have all that junk mail to deliver, then perhaps they wouldn't have to keep raising the price of stamps to pay for the infrastructure to keep increasing their capacity.
Just a though, but wouldn't personal info belong to the person, and by a company selling that information, wouldn't the person who owns that information (namely the person who's info is being sold) be entitled to royalties? I mean if a company took someones picture and used it in an add then that person could sue the company placing the add. Unless they got permission. So why is personal info so much difference than a picture, or a voice?
I'd like 20 cents for every time my name address and phone # has been sold...I could buy a couple new toys for my computer.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
"All I am saying is think through what regulation does, it limits company's and individual's freedom and costs customer's money."
Regulation does much more. It also protects us from scammers, toxic waste dumps, bad products, etc.
Company officers (for public companies) are REQUIRED BY LAW to maximize profits for shareholders. If there were no regulations, they would do anything and everything they could to accomplish that goal including things that are bad for you and me, and everyone else.
The problem is that while we were free to opt out of doing business with these companies, we were not free from harassment. Your "doom and gloom" predictions which are used over and over by big business that are doing bad things NEVER PLAY OUT in reality. In fact, it may force companies to be more creative in customer acquision and management which may ultimately increase business.
Look at the lack of regulation in the power industry in California. Hmm. The power companies wrote the deregulation laws and then abused the situation. (Actually, I place only 50% of the blame there, the other 50% goes to the environmental nazi's which protested and sued over all new power plant requests...)
We actually had a privacy bill going here in CA, but the big corporate groups bought our governor and the bill died. The amount of FUD those companies put out was amazing.