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 . . ."
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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