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!
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.
-- 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?
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
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
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
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.
They are the ...
mail preference society
phone preference society
Both listed in the from the the phone directories.
Takes at least three months for things to happen once you've filled in the formed.
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.