Minnesota Passes First Online Privacy Law

Subotai writes: "Finally a state with a clue. Today, Minnesota passed a law forcing ISPs to notify customers before they sell information about them and tell them how to prevent it." Finally, a nice example of how a bill becomes a law.

Comments

or not

[austad]

Finally a state with a clue.

While this law is cool, I wouldn't say MN has a clue. They are forcing everyone to pay for our new stadium by the imposition of a "sin tax". The tax is in effect on some stuff in Minneapolis now, and will roll out to the whole state by 2004. Tax is $1 on a bottle of beer, around $3.50 on a pack of cigarettes, $5 for a lap dance (I shit you not), and taxes on lingerie and other such things.

While it's true that you don't need to buy these things if you don't want to pay for the stadium, it sucks for those of us who regularly buy these things and could give a rats ass about the stadium.

Re:or not

[Buran]

A bill to fund the construction of a new stadium here in downtown St. Louis just died in legislature this week. We have a stadium (the famous Busch Stadium) that works, though it could use a renovation. The sponsors of the bill wanted to tear it down and build a "new" old-style stadium in its place.

All because the local baseball team (the Cardinals) decided to whine and threaten to leave if the state didn't build a new stadium. But why, said the citizens, should we fund a new stadium with tax revenues if other things, like education, are hurting? Why should our sales taxes go up? The Univ. of MO is considering imposing surcharges to cover the deficit since the governor can't seem to balance the state budget.

I'd say MO doesn't have a clue either. At least here the stadium bill failed.

Yes, die! In committee!

[andy@petdance.com]

Bah, all you need is Saturday morning television to know how a bill becomes a law.

no, no, no

[Khopesh]

they missed the most vital requirement needed:
require opt-IN, not opt-out.

my favorite piece of spam is the one that comes only once:
You have been selected for regular weekly mailings of penile enlargement accessory news. If you do not want to receive these announcements, do nothing and this will be the last time we will contact you. In order to receive our penile enlargement newsletters, you must reply to the following address: we-actually-care@scum-suckers.spam

it's still unsolicited, but hey, here's a step in the right direction and it makes businesses much more legitimate in my book. this way, the small number of people who DO want this kind of mail will still get it. anybody else will get a few spams initially and will then fall off spammers' radar.

Re:no, no, no

[PCM2]

Seems like it would be pretty hard to make a guarantee like "this will be the last time we will contact you."

Unlike dead-tree junk mail, where marketers often rent the mailing lists for one-time use only, a lot of spammers seem to get their addresses either from scraping Web sites or from CD-ROMs bought by mail order. To be absolutely sure that your address never appeared twice across all their sources, they would have to keep a "did not respond" database, and check it against every email address they're about to send spam to.

Now how many companies do you think will actually do such a thing? Even if it seemed technically realistic, how many marketers are going to be willing to say "I will never contact this address again, ever, for any reason, even for some purpose unrelated to the last email I sent them, at which time they did not opt in"?

Tennessee is dealing with the same things

[ShaunC]

While this law is cool, I wouldn't say MN has a clue. They are forcing everyone to pay for our new stadium by the imposition of a "sin tax".

I know this is roving off-topic, but it's worth the karma hit. For anyone who's concerned with their state politics, and especially for anyone living in a state that wants to raise sin taxes, please read this.

I don't know how Minnesota is faring financially, but my home state of Tennessee is broke, really broke. We have no state income tax, and several of the state legislators are trying to change that, but nobody wants it and the chances of a state income tax passing are about the same as the chances of Microsoft open-sourcing Windows. Zip, zero, nada.

So what's the alternate proposal? Sin taxes, of course. "Tax the people who buy cigarettes." "Tax the people who buy beer or liquor." I honestly don't understand why people like me (who smoke and drink) should have to bail the state out of debt. The fact that I smoke and drink does not mean that I have contributed to the state's debt any more than any other individual. Likewise, I should not be held any more responsible for our problems than anyone else. I don't support a state income tax, but if it's that or sin taxes, give me an income tax. At least that's spread equally among all residents.

I'm in Memphis, about 30 minutes from a ton of casinos in Tunica County, Mississippi. There are countless thousands of Tennessee dollars being spent (and lost) in Mississippi casinos every month. That money goes straight to MS. If TN would enact a state lottery, at least some of the casino money would stay in-state, and those who live further away from the casinos for a trip there to be convenient would buy lotto tickets instead, all of which would help to put us in the black... But it'll never happen, because we're in the middle of the bible belt. The Baptists won't let Tennessee have a lottery, because it's a "sin." And they seem to think the only way to bail the state out of debt is to tax "sinners" (aka smokers, drinkers). It bothers me to no end that the religious right feels they have no responsibility and that all the "sinners" should carry the state's financial weight.

Raising taxes for smokers/drinkers and nobody else is just as inappropriate as raising taxes for African-Americans and nobody else, or raising taxes for men only, or raising taxes only for people who own more than 1 acre of land. Just because I smoke Camels and drink Bud doesn't mean I should have to finance the state. Sin taxes are discriminatory.

Some of your state government representatives smoke, and some if not all of them enjoy a drink now and then. If you're living in a state that's considering raising "sin" taxes (since when is it the government's business to tax or regulate "sins" and believe me the government representatives call them "sin taxes" just like anyone else) please write your representatives - both your state legislature and your representatives to US Congress - and explain your distaste. Quote the previous paragraph in your letter.

Please.

Thanks,

Shaun

3rd parties, and the 2nd part of the bill

[teambpsi]

As an ISP in Minnesota, I seriously wonder about the slippery slope of legalese like "joint-venture" which isn't technically a "third-party". Don't get me wrong, I'm a privacy freak, and QWEST deserves worse...

The second part of the bill is frankly not feasible -- from a forced implementation standpoint:

"A second part of the bill follows the lead of other states that have adopted rules to try to control unwanted e-mail. It would require companies sending unsolicited advertisements to include the letters "ADV" in the subject line of e-mails -- "ADV-ADULT" for material of a sexual nature -- to make it easier to filter out."

And what mechanism is in place to:

a. police it?
b. enforce it?
c. litigate it? and at who's expense?

and lets talk jurisdiction here....or lets not ;)