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."

4 of 314 comments (clear)

  1. 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

  2. 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?
  3. 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.

  4. 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.