Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Bill Would Prevent Disclosure of Web Habits
jweb writes: "The Minneapolis Star Tribune is running an article about a bill in the Minnesota legislature that would make it illegal for an ISP to disclose personal information about websites that its customers visit. According to the article, this bill has passed both houses of the legislature, with one key difference: the House version requires customers to 'opt-out' of this information-sharing, but the Senate version would be 'opt-in', requiring the customer to specifically state that they would like their personal information made available. Not suprisingly, AOL and Yahoo are lobbying against it."
What a lovely piece of shiznit that thing is...
*packs bags*
See you in Minnesota!
Minnesota, eh? I can just see it now...
"Failure to comply with the terms of this legislation will result in you being thrown over the ropes and body-slammed into the announcer's desk."
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Why does this bill not go after third party programs/spyware such as Gator?
Now I can look at pr0n and not get sued ;)
No doubt Yahoo! is lobying to get a "force re-opt-out" option in the House version. This "force re-opt-out" clause would allow ISPs to switch all of their customers to having "opted-in" every 30 days! Yahoo!
"The scientist describes what is; The engineer creates what never was." - Theodore von Karman
maybe now all the other states will think about following suit. This is a good precedent, imho.
Corporations, not just Yahoo and AOL of course, have this problem where they think your personal information belongs to them.
I do not know how many times I've had my email address, phone and other details divulged around this "partnership" marketing crap.
The answer to this is to use an ISP that specifically tells you that they do not sell your information. Only *then* will other sleeze-bucket outfits like AOL fall into line.
I live in Minnesota (and love it btw being from Dallas originally) and I think this has a lot to do with the BS that Qwest has been pulling lately although a lot of it could be election year politics in general because this is heating up to be vital election here. I can definitely say that writing your representative might have done some good here though since I went on a letter writing campaign on several issues a few weeks ago. Maybe the computer gods just love me though.
-- I am baseball in Minnesota.
As a resident of the state...only a suburb away from Hopkins, it's unusual to see the state doing something that doesn't involve us paying more taxes for.
If they can do it, more power to them, I say. Of course, if they can tax us and still do this, the bastards will find a way.
Welcome to Minnesota...the state where absolutely nothing is allowed...but at least we do it to cor
----------
ah honey, we're all resplendent - Bill Mallonee
They're tracking you, they can track you. Use peer to peer anonymizer tools like peekabooty.
I've said it before, and I'll said it agai:
WE NEED TO USE ENCRYPTION MORE.
there.
We all talk about using encryption, but how many of our emails are actually encrypted. We need to start encrypting regular email. Now, if you encrypt email.. it looks suspicious. Now, when you browse anonymously, it looks suspicious.
Soon privacy will be suspicious.
Don't believe me? Watch.
If you dont defend it the fourth amendment will be a forgotten and irrelevant.
So they can't disclose this information anymore if all goes well.
Does this mean that they will still keep track of everybody and give the information to the goverment incase they ask for it, or use it theirselves?
Or are do they have to do a "killall information_tracking_d" ?
(or a manual ctrl+alt+del -> taskmanager -> information_... -> end process everytime they reboot their servers;)
Yahoo and AOL are against it because of the DMCA, and yakity-yakity blah blah blah. Also, imagine if we could get a beowulf cluster of these?
Seriously, I think it falls into personal privacy just as phone messages would be. I really think its only a matter of time before by default, it becomes legal precedent.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I don't care, as long as I'm clearly notified of my rights, its easy to do, and its enforced.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I'm interested in people's opinions. What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM), but advertising targeted at a particular group of people? If no names are exchanged and there is no government conspiracy, is there really an issue? It would seem that targetted ads are more effective, thereby being less intruisive (they show you things that you actually care about), and reduce the need for more invasive methods of advertising which is like shooting in the dark. I agree, I don't want my porno preferences and sleeping arrangements sent to Big Biz, but is there actually harm in letting a little bit of information out? Just wondering....
This is good stuff :)
:)
I figured, personally that this should be an automatic right.. only infringed upon in a criminal court.
But who knows.. this is similar to one of the earlier articles today about the internet going way too commercial.
There should be a law passed regarding the disclosure of information.. a national law, that is.
AFterall, it is interstate commerce (international, too)
Hopefully more laws like this will pass. and the bad bad corporate egos will have to gain their business legitematly (spelling
------------
Sase
"It's the opposite of that."
but jeez wouldn't it be great to introduce topics like this into the court system? This would at least give folks more legal ground/precedent to stand on in future court cases.
your = it belongs to you. you're = a contraction of you and are. Got it now?
The terms are strange here, but assuming opt-out means that you took action (normally opt-in) to get out of data collection, that is better than opt-in (which would mean you sign a form allowing them to sell your data).
Think about it. If you could just file a form with the state government, its pretty easy for anyone that cares to do so.
If you need to be careful that you NEVER consent to the information, we're screwed. How carefully do you read everything? Ever miss a sentance in boiler plate agreements?
My concern with the default being privacy, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, is that you'll get tricked into giving up your privacy. You'll have to watch every click, etc. I'd rather just have a form (online or offline) for people that care to fill out than to have to make certain that you never screw up.
Alex
this is unbelievable. someone is actually succeeding in getting a bill that makes sense through congress? are we sure they understand what the bill means? yes, that must be it. i think that my brain is not handling this well. no, really, this is actually a good thing, and congress is actually even looking at it? now i'm trying to think if possibly could open the door to something evil. they pass this and then afterward something bad happens based on this. hmm. [if only we could put distributed.net on this one.]
--------- unix, because rebooting is for adding new hardware.
Now nobody can release the fact I visit a certain
site that starts with goat several times a day.
Is this for websites in Minnesota, customers in Minnesota, or TCPIP packets which happen to go through Minnesota?
... but sometimes local laws simply can't work.
I respect the right of people to make local laws
0xB
What is it with these opt-out fanatics? It seems like a pretty bare-faced admission that they know that people don't want their products/services. Why must the vast majority of us who don't want to be solicited go out of our way to be left alone? Finally, what does it say about your product/service when your target audience is too inept to request it?
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
I would love to see Yahoo and AOL's reasons for lobbying against the bill...
"Well, as we all know, we provide extraordinary services to our customers, without them knowing it, by giving them the latest advertisements, that are useful, entertaining, and just great! It would be a shame if some users could not receive these because they didn't know they were available. We want to protect consumer's interests!"
As a resident and taxpayer of Minnesota, I am pleased. The funny thing about Minnesota is that even though the state is mostly rural, its pretty hip to the whole tech thing. Outside California or New York, Minnesota is one of your more tech-friendly states. The cool thing is that the Congress is also very aware what the tech industry is all about. Its nice to live in a state where you can be a programmer and still live out in God's Country ;-)
All gushing aside, I'm glad to see the Minnesotan Congress get something Good(TM) done (especially lately). I'm pretty sure Minnesota is also still suing Microsoft.
Also, in this week's Pioneer Press TECH section, we had such articles such as Linux's determined quest as a desktop os. That article talked about CodeWeavers (of WINE fame) and the work they've done to allow Linux users to decently manipulate MS Office documents. There was also a nice writeup about the plight of internet radio, and how the RIAA is assraping them.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
I would like to see a system where one must opt in and the companies who sell your information must compensate you to some extent.
Maybe someone could put together a group to protect surfers (SIAA) and they could set up some kind of payment plan for companies who use personal information.
And that information could be in a propietary format that expires in a set amount of time.
I envision a grand future of riches for all surfers. (And SIAA lawyers)
.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
It's for ISPs in Minnesota.
Takahashi Rumiko made beats! DON, taku, DON, taku. . .
* Reading Slashdot
* Checking Game Sites
* Downloading Porn
* Etc
Ahh. I feel better having confided my darkest secrets with the Authorities!
Don't read this!
Califiornia may seem tech friendly because it contains Silicon Valley, but remember that Hollywood lies several hundred miles to the south, and that Diane Feinstein was one of the key supporters of the CBDTPA.
pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory7
This is actually a "GOOD THING" (tm), I'm rather impressed someone in local Government understands that people are moving parts of their lives online. There needs to be some basic protection from companies to mine this data.
Just think of some of the areas, support groups for rape, drug use, violence, addictions, cancer, etc... Discussion groups, political, sex, food, hobbies, art, cars, investing, etc..
These laws act like a catalyst. If we make opt-in mandatory, we can push other areas to require opt-in methods. Opt-out is a scam that big companies like AOL and Yahoo love. It takes a couple weeks for your Opt-out to register, while your data is already sold.
Its bad enough, you can pull most of a persons life from DMV and Credit reports, do we need a persons intimate personal life also?
-
Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well. - Samuel Butler (1835 - 1902)
......no,it has always smelled that way.
Karma: Bad (mostly affected by moderation done to your comments)...Now i know why.
fuck that.
i pick up the phone.
new york city, gotta love it.
Bottom line: AOL/Yahoo users do not understand the economics behid the terms of service. So what many do not realize is that this bill kills a major revenue stream. Not that the users should be indruded upon...but they should not be suprised if (1) AOL prices go up (2) other services increase (3) yahoo charges more for stuff. Just my $.02
*Rummages in robe for some dried frog tablets*
Consumers has have this problem where they think that information they freely hand out on a public fourum is still somehow private.
Suit #1: We need to make more money!
Suit #2: Perhaps disclose of web habits is the answer.
Suit #1: I concur!
(door explodes)
Minnesota Bill: Not so fast!
Suits #1&2 (unison): Minnesota Bill!
(Bill lays waste to their plush conference room, taking their scumware source code and user database with him as he leaves).
If this works out they can employ Bill's sidekicks, Nebraska Tyrone and Maine Blaine, in the fight against spam.
cheers,
mike
For those who are interested, here's a link to the bill itself: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill . l?number=SF3272&session=ls82&version=latest&sessio n_number=0&session_year=2002. It doesn't say a whole lot more than the article, except that it defines the scope of "customer information" in more detail.
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
House Bill (from the article: "Pawlenty's version would allow customers to elect to keep their information private, but otherwise let companies distribute the data.")
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getb
Senate Bill (from the article: "Kelley's version of the bill would automatically prohibit ISPs from disclosing the information unless they get permission from customers first.")
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getb
And here's info about the bill's status:
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us:8181/SEARCH/
Keep in mind that it's Jesse who will have to sign this into law, and what he will do is always a crapshoot!
--A Minnesotan
FLAMEBAIT?....try humor or funny or sarcasm....ect.
it's too bad the lesbians get the bum wrap for being humorless when moderators wouldn't know humor even if it was humping your leg
if some enterprising ISP in Minnesota would go national and offer those protections to the rest of us. They could advertise letting people know that the data-collecting SOBs aren't looking over your shoulder.
Anyone know of an ISP in Minnesota with a national presence?
In Washington state there is an initiative petition to require all state and local polititions to take the state wide education test, and then to have the info made public and posted in the official voter guides.
you can see that story here.
Given the usual hassles and cluelessness with polititions, I like this.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
Minnesota Bill, Fats' lesser known younger brother. The highlight of his career was his big match against Reasonably Quick Bruce. Soon to be a made-for-TV movie on the USA network.
Personal information given to a company in a private transaction is not a "public forum", methinks.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
I agree, Yahoo! has been a real pain in the arse since they got a legal department. They used to be the good guys in the nineties. Now they just want to own everything about everyone, and sell it for a profit.
The speed of time is one second per second.
Why? Because they know almost no one would...
And you know what I say? Tough shit! Information like that costs MONEY to gather in any other endeavor. For example, Arbitron and Nielsen are "opt in" and pay a (token) amount to participants.
If customer information for marketing purposes is so valueable, then make them PAY for it. I think the recent Yahoo! "preferences reset" shows how rife ANY "opt out" system will be for such abuse... When I got that message from Yahoo!, I wanted to go into my account and CLOSE it rather than just reset the preferences..
Guess what, KILLING OFF your Yahoo! ID (and your information stored, such as your e-mail address) is NOT an option!
Which means that even if I never visit Yahoo! again nor use any of the "services" you get with a Yahoo! ID, they are still keeping my e-mail address, and other info, and are likely to at some point in the future pull an "oops I did it again".
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
You should care because an opt-in system will default to giving you privacy, while an opt-out system will default to you not having privacy.
Of course, we can expect the worst from everyone: if it gets made opt-in, everyone will just change their user agreements to require you to opt-in to subscribe to anything, and if it gets made opt-out, they'll just do their best to hide the opt-out screen and make the process as difficult as possible... but we can at least start out in the right direction.
Wow. This is the first I can recall of reading about this bill. I read the Strib daily, and have MPR on, at least as background, maybe 8 hrs a day.
I guess I just need to pay better attention. But this is triffic news, really, even if it ends up being opt in, I for one, will opt to keep my info private.
I've always been happy with my ISP - signed up with minn.net in '94, staying with them for DSL saved me hella pain when Qwest screwed all their subscribers while turning them over to the Beast of Redmond. I doubt they would have sold my info before they got bought out about 1.5 year ago, now I just don't know, and I'll be very glad that I don't have to just trust them.
(BTW, I'm still very happy with minn.net, now owned by Boss technologies, they were great while I set up DSL, they just aren't the good ol' isp I
originally signed up with.)
ceci n'est pas un 'sig'
Everyone, face it. The days of the free internet is over. It has not been and will not be economically sound for content providers to just give you content for free. Why must the CNN and the NYTimes of the world give you free content if you have to pay for the same content, if not in a more difficult to handle fashion, offline [$0.75/NYTime or $30/month as part of a packaged cable fee for CNN] The ad revenue model only works when the people that are marketing their products can achieve a measurable result of the ads effectiveness. This just isn't true in the current state of the Internet.
Now consider this for a second. [Don't just disclaim it as a wild off the wall analysis]. Let's just say that you are a frequent diner to a fine restaurant. Because you are such a frequent customer, the maitre'd knows you personally and greets you immediately giving you personal attention. He gives you your favorite table and because you typically spends upwards of $200 for dinner, he gives you a bottle of your favorite wine complimentary of the house. [Note: he knows your favorite wine because that's what you order every time prior].
Now let's consider another scenario. This is your first time at this restaurant. You made a reservation, but as usual, they overbooked. You have to wait. The hostess stuffs you into the corner table right by the kitchen. And treats you like everyone else.
This is the difference between a company tracking your site usage (or internet usage) vs a scenario where your usage is never tracked. My contention is that by giving up a little bit of your information, you are getting a more customized service with value added. It provides for a greater user experience.
So what's a scenario of this happening online? Suppose that you are shopping for a car. You use the internet to browse through all the Ford Mustangs. You go to ford.com and read up on the new Mustang. You read some reviews on the Mustang and you browse through car dealership sites for Ford Mustangs. You look up the Trade In price on Blue Book. Now that the system knows that you are shopping for Mustangs, sites can customize their ads to your needs. Imagine going to the Kelley's Blue Book site and seeing an ad for a Mustang on sale at carday.com and because they know that you are a serious buyer, they offer you $500 off the list price and because they have rough demographics on the type of person that you are, they give you a good deal on financing [all within the ad] Now all you have to do is click on the Ad and you'll be ready to buy.
Now, let's look at this:
Alright, before you think that I'm crazy..I was once a skeptic. What changed my mind was Dan Rosen, the CEO of CNet.com was our guest lecturer for my b-school class and this was the stuff that he was talking about. What you have to remember is this: people can opt-out of this tracking buy turning off your cookies. But what you lose is that added value provided it. Without your cookie, the only thing that they could use to track is your IP address, and in many cases, this is dynamic, so each time you will start anew.
_______________________________
"I'm not Conceited...I'm just a realist..."
I disagree... I don't think the failure of advertising is limited ONLY to the Internet... I think it was just the Internet that EXPOSED the fact that "The Emperor has no clothes".
Internet advertising so far is the ONLY means of advertising that shows 100% accurate stats on views/reads/clicks, and how many result in purchase.
I'd be willing to bet that if the same accuracy were available for TV, Radio, and other more "traditional" advertising, you'd find similar rates of return, maybe even less.
IMO, I think the whole advertising/marketing profession is due for a crash soon. Already, TV and radio ad buys are down...
Radio, in particular is concerned about competition from national, and largely ad-free satcaster radio that offers FAR greater diversity than broadcast radio.
By bombarding us with ads from every corner and every surface, the marketers have made us more resistant... I liken it to how strains of bacteria eventually develop that resist the latest, most powerful version of penicillin...
Just as doctors fear "superbacteria" reisistant to ANY penecillin, Marketers should fear taht eventually a "strain" of pissed off consumers will finally become resistant to any and ALL new methods of obnoxious delivery of copy.
That day is coming, if it's not already here.
=== The price of freedom is eternal vigilance
My argument for the opt-In philosophy is this as a resident: I as a consumer have a right NOT to do business with any business I choose (i.e I can boycott). I also have a right to do business with ANY company in the U.S (of course there are exceptions. i.e Necessary permits) Take these two right and stick em in the ground as a base to work from. Now does a company have the right to do business with me without my consent based on the prior said rights? My constitutional basis for those prior rights is: 10th Amendment ".... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the States respectivly, or to the people." This amendment states that just because we don't have a documented right to privacy, until the government denies us the right to privacy we citizens have the right. Unless the state takes it from us. My opinion.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
From Slashdot's article: "the House version requires customers to 'opt-out' of this information-sharing."
I would like to see users who don't opt-out taught a lesson, but sending them to jail seems a bit harsh.
The best quote being from Colorado Supreme Court Justice Bender who wrote "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."
I would think that the sites a person visits should be protected in the same way our choice of reading material is. There really isn't any difference between the two media.
This sig intentionally left justified.
Already, TV and radio ad buys are down...
Then why are there more commercials and less programming? Commercial breaks are longer, there are more commercials in them...
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
What's this? That guy visits Slashdot twice a day?! Keep an eye on him. He's DANGEROUS!
Calm down, it's *only* ones and zeroes.
One major difference, though. If I go to Fiori's every day, the staff there will get to know me and my habits. If I go to Giovanni's, the staff at Fiori's don't know what I ordered there, and it's none of their business. If I want them to know, I'll tell them. My objection to the way businesses want the Internet to work is that it's the equivalent of Fiori's and Giovanni's not just sharing my habits without my permission but the local Restaurant Association snagging the information from both of them to target advertising at me without my permission to do so. If I had wanted Fiori's or the RA to know what I ordered at Giovanni's, I'd've told them. I didn't, so I probably don't and I don't appreciate their spying on me behind my back.
And if I'm going to the Kelly Blue Book site, I probably don't want ads for particular cars. I want information on the cars I ask for. This is where most businesses get tripped up, trying to guess what the customer wants instead of just asking him and then giving him what he asked for. I don't appreciate stores where the staff are constantly hovering behind me interrupting while I'm looking, and I don't appreciate it on-line either.
Will it (still?) be OK for individuals to upload information about their own internet usage?
Keep the aspidistra flying!
This is the same guy who called a press confrence to tell the world that he was running for reelection, then told us it was an April fool.
Some guy, huh?
Speaking as an admin for a small Minnesota ISP, I really hope this bill passes. Mainly because if it doesnt, my helpdesk will have to deal with any number of customers calling us up (after learning that ISPs can sell, let alone collect their web browsing habits) and demand that we let them opt-out. Then Ill have to make some sort of stupid opt-out webpage that doesnt really do anything when I could be doing better things like looking at porn or sleeping.
As it stands we don't even monitor our users activities, beyond keeping connect and disconnect info. Selling this kind of info is just plain wrong, right now it is limited to maybe getting subscribed to a few spam lists, but what about when the telemarketers get in on this? Imagine getting a call: "Hello Mr. Smith, We've noticed that you've been visiting www.something.com recently and would like to inform you of our great deal."
Thats not the kind of phone call I would want inturrupting my porn veiwing/sleeping.
Monolinux reports that Mozilla 1.0 is very close at hand, with a due date of "sometime next week" for 1.0RC1.
Telemarketing does not cost you anything that you are not already spending (unless they call you on a cell phone). Sure, if enough call you, their industry could deny you phone service (much like a denial of service attack). But phone calls are reletively expensive since they have to pay a real person for each call. If somebody wants to get a hold of you, they will get through.
Snail mail may fill up your mail box, but it doesn't cost you anything other than the time to throw it in the garbage.
Radio and TV ads don't cost you anything but time.
Email and Internet access are something that many people pay for based on volume (or time). If your name gets on the wrong list, a person could use up a significant portion of their monthly allocation to downloading garbage--and they wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. This form of advertisement actually deprives people of a commodity that they paid for.
Now if advertisers had to pay to send unsolicited email, perhaps through your ISP account, at least enough to cover the cost you would pay to download their messages, they might have a leg to stand on.
But they don't.
science is a religion
1) Fractured viewship means that they have to show more commercials to get the same revenue. 2) They're putting out crap, while making erroneous claims about the ratings their programming will carry, and when the commercials aren't seen by as many people as they should be, the networks have to make good on the lost viewership by giving free spots.
"You're never ready, just less unprepared."
huh? nothing allowed? you sure this is still MN you're talking about?
also, i think you cut off part of your sentence.
omnia tua castra sunt nobis
I was under the impression the the ECPA prevented disclosure of network traffic to any third party, and that monitoring one's network was only allowed to look for technical malfunctions. (Indeed, if one employee found something funny in their searches for hackers, and told another, that would be federally actionable.)
Did something change?
--Dan
Not only that, but opt-out plans generally expire after a year. If you forget to renew, the company can sell off your data.
I gave my email address to an e-retailer that someone recommended to me. I opted-out of their promotional marketing. I haven't purchased anything from them since, but one year after my first order, they started sending me junk mail. Since I forgot to renew the opt-out, they felt they could take my old data and start using it.
AOL does the same thing. If you forget to renew, it is as though you never opted out in the first place. If you want your data to remain private, you have to renew the opt-out every single year for the rest of your life! Even after you are no longer a customer.
It's ONLY a win for me if I want to play this sordid little game. I guess it never crossed the minds of those in the marketing biz that there are some people who simply aren't into the 'push' model. That's me. If I want information about products I'm interested in, I'll go find it. I don't need to be spoon-fed by corporate droids with a smile on their face and one hand reaching around for my wallet.
That's a -result- of peoples' immunity to advertising, and bears out the original poster's theory.
Finally a law that actually does something useful. Question is, does this just cover public disclosure of information or does it also cover collection and use of the data for other means (e.g. personal history lists)?
You fool! You've given cheese to a lactose intolerant volcano god! Do you know what that means?
Hand and Hand with the ISP tracking issues, We, J.Q.Public, ought to be able to limit the terms of browser cookies. Currently, you either accept or reject a cookie.
How about a "I accept this cookie, but when I leave the web site, the browser will automatically delete the cookie" option?
Or a "I accept this cookie, but only the issueing web site can retrieve the cookie AND it will automatically expire in X number of days (settable by the user)" option.
Or a "I accept all cookies, but they automatically expire in X number of hours (settable by the user)" option?
Or variations.... Anyhow, I accept that some website need to track the users. What I do not accept is the persistance of cookies which allow the same sites to continue to track you long after you leave the website.
BonusMail(c) / MyPoints(c) is a service I signed up for a long time ago and is exactly what it sounds like you're describing. As a member, I fill out a survey of my interests and hobbies and they send me email advertisements that are targeted to me.
For simply reading each piece of email I get gives me 5 points of credit. Credits can be exchanged (after 1000) for goods and services such as gift certificates to resturants or discounts on airline tickets to name a couple.
There have been several other services like this in the past as well, but the major problem with these services is it only gets to those people willing to opt-in. Spam, on the other hand, gets to everyone regardless and that many more people are exposed to whatever the product is.
Do I agree with spam? Of course not, but I simply don't see companies voluntarily giving up their all-encompassing audience to a much smaller audience of opt-in members.
Click here to receive 5 points
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I'm orginally for Minnesota (first 18 years of my life) and lived in a small town of 2000 about 13 miles north of Rochester. Rochester is not a big city either (approx. 75,000) but it is quite hi-tech in its public library and Mayo Clinic.
In my hometown my parents have a DSL Internet connection offered by our local Phone and Cable Co. (one building off of Main St.) They also have digital cable (the only type of cable offered now after a switch last year). My father is employed by IBM as are many people in the Rochester, MN area.
The Mayo Clinic is also a very hi-tech organization that is constantly developing new medical technologies and software which helps them remain the world's best medical facility. (Why do you think Rochester, MN was voted the best place to live in America four times? Simple - more doctors per capida than anywhere else....plus fairly low crime and pollution.)
In the winter, I live in Minne-snow-ta
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
As a minnesota resident, I can tell you that this whole thing is because of the local phone monopoly Qwest was selling private info of its phone customers without their knowledge. When the news watchdogs confronted them about this, their position was it was legal so they could do it... that pissed off the legislature, so they made this law which applies to phone customers as well as ISPs (Qwest is also the local DSL monopoly)
/. password. I need a cookie.
I hate logging in from public stations as I can never remember my
In New York State, they've implemented a No-Call list for anyone who doesn't want to receive phone calls from telemarketers. It's free to the consumer and any telemarketing company that calls you once you're on the list can be fined in the thousands of dollars per call - all you need to record is the caller's name, their company, and the time of the call.
It's worked out great too! I signed up for it at the end of last year (December 2001) and they told me it takes up to two months to publish the list after which time I should receive no calls whatsoever (with a few specialized exceptions). Since about mid-January I haven't received any telemarketer calls at all and it's a relief. Now if the phone rings it's more likely than not someone I want to talk to or has actual business with me.
A list like this for Internet marketing would be wonderful! Just register all the email addresses you don't want spam to come to and if it does arrive, simply forward a copy to the enforcement agency to get on the spammer's case.
doesn't it feel good to pay less?
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Is he a relative of Sideshow Bob?
...and then you might get states like Wisconsin, New York, and Florida (all democratic if I remember correctly) to pass similar bills. The states you're going to have a tough time getting this legislation through include California, Texas, Washington, and other conservative states (I don't think California's conservative, but they are an exception because of Hollywood, the RIAA, and other such Internet/Media conglomerates based there).
First they voted a wrestler for governer, now they're passing an anti-spam bill - God Bless Minnesota!
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Laws don't prevent anything. They only make
things illegal.
Not sure I'm psyched about this one. While I agree that companies should make it clear what they plan to do with your data, before they do it, making a blanket prohibition doesn't make a lot of sense to me. By reselling marketing data, service providers generate additional revenue - if they can't sell that data, then prices will go up. Given the choice, I'd rather get ads targeted to my browsing, and save some money on my cable modem bill, then get random ads, and pay extra. Still, users should really have that choice. If you choose to opt-out, though, you should also be willing to pay more. HBO has no commercials, but users pay a monthly fee, after all.
Now if my savings account could send me nags now and then, that would be cool.
Besides...suppose that every time you went to a bookstore, some guy in a trenchcoat followed you and wrote everything you looked at in a little book. Would that creep you out a bit, even if he said it was to send you better junk mail? Would it maybe influence what books you looked at? Would you say "Oh good, I want better junkmail, watch me close," or "Get the hell away from me you freak!"
[insert witty comment here]