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."
Why does this bill not go after third party programs/spyware such as Gator?
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.
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.
You've just made your own counterargument.
Information wants to be free. Computers are devices that are designed to replicate and transmit information. Once a copy of the information exists, it can be replicated indefinitely and passed on from person to person.
As a practical matter, there's no such thing as "letting a little bit of information out". It's like being a little bit pregnant.
You can give information to groups you trust not to abuse it, but as soon as you make a mistake, you're fscked.
I choose to give some personal information to Slashdot to set up an account because I trust them to keep it reasonably secure, and to inform me when they're 0wned :)
Likewise, I choose to deny - to the extent that I'm capable - giving information to Doubleclick, Microsoft Passport, and basically anything else with a TrustE seal on it, because the only thing I trust such groups to do with that information is sell it to anyone who wants it.
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
Well, there's this thing called dignity, and you go from there.
But it's been my experience that people who don't understand the privacy thing, probably never will until the issue eventually harms them directly. Lack of empathy, or self esteem?
People who invade your privacy are stealing from you. If you can't understand the type of loss that entails, I doubt I or anyone else can put it to words. At some point in your life you should have, or will, develop this understanding, if you are a healthy human being.
I use deoderant, is direct marketing deoderant going to get me to change my habits? no.
how bout:
I buy servers for my company. Is direct marketing a type of server going to get me to change my habits?
Possibly. If someone (IBM) comes along and offers a new line of boxes, and a support contract to match them, that outperforms what I have (SUN) for a reasonable price, and I might be in the market for servers in the next year or so, then yes. Its very much possible that this direct, targetted marketing could change my mind.
Video for Online Dating Profiles
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)
What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM), but advertising targeted at a particular group of people?
Perhaps I have missed your point here, but the problem is that, in many cases, people don't want it. I don't need some marketers lies dumped in my mail box each day. Worse yet, those same lies shouldn't be dumped in the mail boxes of people who don't understand what they are reading, enough to help them see the lies in it. Sure, there are truth in advertizing laws, but these are really just for show, companies are able to get around them by performing studies that are completly slanted. Or with the practice of puffing, "Best in the World!!" (not likely, but they are allowed to say it.).
The idea of stopping directed marketing, is just a protective reaction. I wouldn't want my mother being subjected to Compaq ads the next time she is looking for a new computer. She's a smart lady, but not real computer savvy, and might not realize that buying a Compaq is asking for me to disown her. I realize that its too much to hope that people will work to make informed choices all of the time. But at least, having them in the dark enough to ask those around them, that know better, is better than having them make choices based on marketing lies.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I get heavly offended when some faceless company tracks my spending habits and then trys to get me to buy crap that I would never buy in the first place!
If they're pitching stuff that you are completely uninterested in, then they're either not tracking your spending habits, or they're doing a piss-poor job of it. The whole point of targeted marketing is to offer you things that you are likely to be interested in. For example, if you spend $1000 at furniture.com and $800 at mattresses.com in the same month, you're a prime candidate for a coupon from bedsheets.com. OTOH, if they see that you donated money to Handgun Control, it makes no sense to send you an offer for a free case of ammo if you buy a Glock.
I live in Minnesota, and the difference between the House and the Senate on this one is not surprising. The House is Republican controlled, and the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. What gets passed on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate means nothing, all of that is just posturing for campaigning. The Republicans don't want to seem anti-business or pro big-government. What really counts is the conference committees that are happening right now. It is there where the bills' differences are ironed out to be passed on to the Governor for his body slam, er signature.
I shouldn't say the full sessions are worthless. Basically, if something isn't in the House or Senate of a bill, it's not going to appear in conference committee. Usually though, the two sides, behind close doors, make decisions that are much more moderate than their respective party caucuses would like to think. In this case, I would think the opt-in strategy will win. It will be interesting to see though, and I'm glad I live in Minnesota on this one, because I know my Governor is going to sign this one!
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
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.
The government can require them to keep track of the information as part of an investigation. But they need a warrant, court order or subpoena to ask for it. (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC 2701 et seq.)
The big problem is that the ECPA specifically allows electronic communications services to give this information to non-government entities without the subscriber's permission. Eliminating that provision on the federal level (making it illegal to give out that information absent either the subscriber's permission or a subpoena/court order) would be easily done and give a heck of a lot more privacy to users.
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.
picture this...
... oh, you want (with emphasis) deep data retreval? ... (eyes spin and green dollar signs come up) Yes we can go back that far. (cha-ching sound)
... You too, thanks. (hangs up phone, turns to hand a slip of paper to someone off camera, revealing a cleric's collar) Sister Doris, would you issue a check to these folks from the Church's "alternate evangelism" fund please, and what is the next ISP in the yellow pages?
(location is an ISP call center, a phone rings)
ISP phone droid #729: (picks up phone) Hello, this is $ISP, how may we make your ride on the information super highway smoother?
caller: I'd like to purchase a list of your users that visit sights like mine for marketing purposes.
phone droid: let me transfer you to marketing.
(cut to plush office, with a sleazball in a suit... plaque on wall reads "salesman of the year 1999")
marketing guy: Why yes Mr. Smith, we can do that. Simply provide us a list of domain names, and we can start send you a list of all $ISP customers that visited that site in the past month
(cut to small office, large crucifix hanging on wall behind man on phone)
man: Yes, that's the end of my list of domains. Uh-huh... yeah... ok I'll be looking forward to it in my inbox, and the check is on it's way.
(cut to another view of the same man in the same office, latter that week, working at a computer, removes floppy from diskette drive and turns to hand it to a woman at a smaller desk in the corner)
man: Sister Martha, would you cross reference this list of email addresses against the church's roster, anyone that appears on both lists, please send them a tithe reminder, jot a note suggesting they meet with me after services on the back. Give the ones that don't match to brother Bruce as potential new members of the One True Way World Church, for his email campaign to save the lost souls.
(fade to black, ominous music playing.)
Think it won't happen?
Think that's air you're breathing?
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