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."
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!
okay, this isn't a troll -
.com (think: primary internet portal). They have a specific ad package that targets only newbies - ads that appear the first time the visitor has the cookie set. Apparently these users click on ads like crazy. They haven't learned yet. And with all the new internet users every day, there will always be a bevey of people that want to opt-in not knowing the difference.
I'm all for opt-in as much as the next person. But with 2 millions new internet users every month, we aren't the target audience of opt-in or opt-out. 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.
I have a friend who works in ad sales for a major
And when does opt-in really make a difference? How many e-mails for you have to receive with the subject "re: your e-mail about HOW TO MAKE $$$$$$ FROM HOME IN YOUR SPARE TIME" from unreadjunk@hotmail.com (yes, that is my real address, and no, you can't send me e-mail there unless you are on my address list) before you realize no one cares about in vs out... you get spam anyway.
E-mail advertising use to be the next best thing. Heck, they even had studies saying we wanted this crap. These days, nobody does. Now they have studies saying we don't mind - make that want, even - SMS spam. When will they learn? When the newbies to the internet stop clicking on them. When the newbies stop buying from them. When the AOL users of the world learn better. But as long as those users are out there, they keep what is left of the internet free for the rest of us. I have a proxy that filters ads. I get 3 spams a month. And I don't pay a cent for a single site I visit. But the newbies do - with their clicks and their time.
RC
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
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
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
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
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."
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.