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."
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?
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
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;)
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."
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
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. . .
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?
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)
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."
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
Are you sure you want to move to MN? We have one of the worst winters of any state. (we even beat out parts of Alaska) Not to mention the cities are crowded, while small town resteraunts always have at least one person eating after visiting the barn. (It takes days to get the smell of a barn out of your pores)
We also don't have anti-spam laws like Washington (amoug others) have. Now that I regularly send 5-10 spams per day to spamcop I'm sensitive to this issue.