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
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.
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.
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....
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
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.
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