Challenges to Opt-Out Privacy Policies at Colleges?

jmaxlow asks: "It's that time of year again when my university sends out mailers informing students that their personal information will be compiled and released in a student directory unless students register objections in writing by the deadline. This info includes name, address, date of birth, and email address, among other items, and there is nothing to prevent them from selling the information to third parties without vested interests. The Buckley Amendment allows them to do this, so of course it isn't illegal. But my question is: has anyone ever petitioned their university to change to an opt-in policy? I'd like to know what responses schools have given, if any, when challenged, before I bring it up with my own registrar."

Comments

Opt-Out is a Cop-Out

[ealar dlanvuli]

Just a friendly public service reminder for those of you in the USA:
When your bank or brokerage sends you a copy of its privacy policy, full of ambiguous language, and saying "Since we protect your privacy, there's no need for you to opt out of our information sharing among our family of companies", do two things:

1) Opt-out. Yes, it means writing a letter and putting a stamp on it. Deal with it.

2) In your letter, mention that you're opting-out because it's your only option available under the law, but that you're doing so under protest - and that you consider anything less than opt-in a violation of your privacy rights. Congratulate the bank on coming up with a wording ("information sharing") that sounds so harmless that most consumers are unlikely to realize what it really means.

3) Print out a second copy and send it to your Representative and Senator. Use proper "Cc:" snail-mail etiquette -- you want your bank to know you're telling your Congresscritter, and you want your Congresscritter to know that your bank knows.

Thank the critter (especially if he or she voted for it) for the new privacy law that's forced banks to do this very small ("opt-out") notification. Tell them that you realize the bank (or more accurately, the DMA, on request of its members) to use a low response rate to this "you have an opportunity to opt-out" mailing campaign as "evidence" that the consumers really do like to eat their spam, "or they'd opt-out, but since 0.00001% actually bothered to opt-out, the other 99.99999% must like receiving special offers through the mail and telephone and email!".

Tell your congresscritters that silence does not imply assent.

You know the argument's bogus. But the DMA, with millions of dollars in lobby funds, is gonna try to make it. And they'll succeed, unless you - yes, you there, behind the keyboard - get off your ass and do something.

Silence does not imply assent. But the DMA is going to try very hard to convince your congresscritter that it does.

The logical response is to deny the DMA the silence it needs to pull off the scam.