Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Minnesota Bill Would Prevent Disclosure of Web Habits

Posted by timothy on from the how-quaint-an-idea dept.

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."

9 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. We've been getting screwed by freakboy303 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  2. I don't understand this privacy thing fully... by kenthorvath · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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....

    1. Re:I don't understand this privacy thing fully... by Cutriss · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

      The problem is abuse. As markets move quicker and faster still, marketing budgets increase in orders of magnitude, as a company that has no name recognition for a product it's been selling for six months is basically screwed.

      The problem is that marketing knows only to match what the industry does - grow. We've seen many cases where a particular company staked out into uncharted territory and was richly rewarded for it...but on the other hand, we've seen tenfold or more cases where they were either scorned, slow, selfish, or stupid. Marketing in brute force is a proven tactic because even the worst product has a buyer somewhere who is stupid enough to fall for it.

      My problem with it is that marketing yesterday, today, and tomorrow is *all* about mindshare. Companies consistently bombard me with ads for a product that I either have already, don't have money for, or have no interest in altogether. I've been seeing banner ads all over the place for my DSL provider. I already have an account with them, so this ad is a waste of money for them. However, if targeted advertising wasn't a pipe dream, and if they had competition in my area (they don't), then their competitors would be bombarding me with ads day-in and day-out until I switched. And then what? I'll get the same treatment back from my old provider. If Coke knows you buy Coke and agrees tos top sending you ads, then what do you think Pepsi is going to do? Suppose you change to Pepsi. Then what?

      The problem is bigger than marketing. The problem is that, in the eyes of the industry, we have mutated from homo sapiens into homo emptoris.

      --
      "Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
  3. Active participation is better here by alexhmit01 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Active participation is better here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're making an incorrect assumption that there will be a centralized opt-out list.

      The direct marketer's plan to avoid the latest round of legislation is to go to opt-out, but to ensure that each company (or even each division in a company) has its own, seperate opt-out list.

      That way tracking down the 100 different opt-out forms will be more effort than just accepting the spam for the vast majority of people. They win, nothing substantial has changed except we have another useless law on the books.

  4. Minnesota by 0xB · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is this for websites in Minnesota, customers in Minnesota, or TCPIP packets which happen to go through Minnesota?

    I respect the right of people to make local laws ... but sometimes local laws simply can't work.

    --
    0xB
  5. What the. . . by czardonic · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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. . .
  6. Opt In w/Rewards by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?
  7. The Bill by Gaijinator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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."