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."

Comments

Those poor consumers

[Ed Avis]

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.

Oh, how my heart bleeds for the deprived residents of Vermont.

Raising the cost?

[malkavian]

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

Right on!

[trenton]

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!

raise the costs of business, eh?

[poemofatic]

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.

Raises costs, hurts consumers...

[Black Parrot]

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?)

I like it

[jchawk]

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. :-)

Catching up with Europe....

[MosesJones]

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 .com goes tits up.

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.

Forcing companies to sell

[guttentag]

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.

I did this for a long time

[legLess]

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.