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...
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
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....
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)
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!
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.