Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy

Posted by Hemos on from the go-move-vermont dept.

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."

7 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. Point for the People by snipingkills · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. Raising the cost? by malkavian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  3. Right on! by trenton · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Finally, government doing some actual good in the realm of technology. It's also easy to implement, as Costle said:
    The industry can just assume that everybody with a Vermont ZIP code has opted out. That's the easy way to fix your computers.
    For most people, that'd be 2 - 3 joins and a where zip between <= 05001 and zip >= 05907 clause.

    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?
  4. raise the costs of business, eh? by poemofatic · · Score: 5, Insightful



    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.

    1. Re:raise the costs of business, eh? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Knowing what diseases I have, what brand of lubricant I use, how often I have hemorroids or what brand of bourbon I use to get drunk is not going to make the world a better place, but it can make one's life miserable if used wrongly.

      Being able to use software freely, improve it, share it with friends and adapt it IS going to make the world a better place.

  5. Re:Ask us? by jimhill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  6. Forcing companies to sell by guttentag · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Opt-in is seen as a tougher standard because it forces companies to sell consumers on the idea of information sharing.
    How awful for the companies, and the consumers!

    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.