Slashdot Mirror
'Awful' Internet Rules Released
maximus1 writes "NetChoice, a trade group that identifies and fights threats aimed at online communities and e-commerce, released iAWFUL, a list of America's 10 worst legislative and regulatory proposals targeted at the Internet. At the top of the list is a Maine law that would require e-commerce sites to get parental approval before collecting minors' personal information. According to the NetChoice site, 'lawmakers approved the measure despite the fact that Web sites have no means to confirm such consent, and would be effectively forced to stop providing valuable services like college information, test prep services, and class rings.' Coming in second on the iAWFUL list is a city ordinance that would hit Internet users with an extra tax on hotel rooms. Scheduled to take effect in September, the new tax is aimed at consumers who use the Internet to bargain hunt for expensive NYC hotel rooms."
That goddamn site design.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Over?
--
BMO
At the top of the list is a Maine law that would require e-commerce sites to get parental approval before collecting minors' personal information.
Considering the fact that they are (1) a minor and (2) probably have much of the same "personal information" as the parents do, I fail to see how this is bad, actually. Theoretically, the parents are still somewhat responsible for their kids when they are minors. I don't see how enforcing that on the internet as well as in other things (such as getting your ears pierced) is a bad thing. Maybe you want to argue about the parental control in the first place, but it doesn't help to just have inconsistent laws...
The internet has been a wonderful thing for billions of people since it's inception. Why on earth are legislators trying to make it a quagmire like anything else they touch? Really it's a great example of market based forces and what they can accomplish. Please, for all our sakes, leave it alone.
Justification:
Just a thought..
iWow, iThat's iHard iTo iDo.
But, yeah, nice work.
Sent from your iPad.
The law states its illegal to: "knowingly collect or receive health-related information or personal information for marketing purposes from a minor without first obtaining verifiable parental consent" MARKETING PURPOSES being the operative term here. This looks like a good law to me
No, I'm not going there to check. It's probably a generic domain name squatter, but I don't want to risk it if I end up being wrong.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Somehow it doesn't surprise me that this list is from a trade group.
The Top 10 "worst internet laws in America" manages to include nothing related to wiretapping, DMCA, or the like; but does manage to include a bunch of whining about advertisers not being able to aggregate user search information?
This looks like shiny astroturf for some of the scum of the internet. If you actually care about good laws and freedom, give the EFF a look.
Perhaps the real problem is a lack of understanding. It seems that many lawmakers who try to deal with internet law have next to no technological knowledge about how the internet works, especially when it comes to e-commerce. (this looks like a good place for the obligatory 'tubes' link).
It seems like a lot of these laws are made with "good intentions" in that they are trying to prevent something they see as wrong: It sounds like the Maine law was trying to control the personal information dispersal of minors, and the law in New York was trying to keep it's residents from evading state taxes. They don't realize that the Maine law destroys a huge teenage market base in an already struggling economy, and that the New York law stifles e-commerce and causes a hastle for everyone outside of the state.
Unfortunately it looks like a lot of these laws are being proposed by individuals (I had originally written 'old farts' here but deleted it because it's unfair to old people... and to farts) have too narrow of a view to fully grasp the repercussions.
It's the same old complaint, I know (-1 Redundant) but I guess as long as there's slashdot, there will always be a place to bitch about it.
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
I agree that it is a bad law in the sense that it is difficult for a site to know if a customer is a minor. So this law will only play out in one of two ways in the courts: the majority of lawsuits will be successful, even though it is currently impossible to judge the age of the customer (they can't ask for ID if they look too young, and minors will lie if asked their age); or there will be a glut of lawsuits that will fail because the courts acknowledge that the vendor cannot judge the age of the customer.
On the otherhand, I don't think that it's a bad law from the perspective of maintaining marketing information. An adult can legally consent to giving away that information, and some will acknowledge that they are more than happy to give away that information. (I personally think that it is stupid to give away personal information, but that is just me.) Minors do not automatically have the privilege to give away that information, for a variety of good reasons. One reason is to protect them from a system that they do not necessarily understand. Another reason is to protect their guardians from minors who give away personal association assocated to those adults. Yet another reason is that the guardian is (in many respects) legally responsible for the actions of the minor.
So the question, in my mind, isn't so much, "is the law good?" The question is, "how can we implement this law effectively?"
As if taxes on NYC Hotel weren't enough: As of June 2009, the taxes and other fees added to the daily hotel rate are: * New York State Sales Tax = 4% * New York City Sales Tax = 8.375% * Hotel Room Occupancy Tax = $2 + 5.875% * Additional Fee = $1.50
Step 1. Type desired text in word processing app.
Step 2. Change case to Title Case.
Step 3. Replace {space} with {space}i.
There, I streamlined a process that shouldn't exist.
Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
Here's the URL to the full list of 10 items: http://www.netchoice.org/press/misguided-marketing-restriction-and-online-travel-tax-top-list-of-worst-internet-legislation.html
"'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."
Class rings are neither valuable nor a service. Just so's ya know...
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
Thats! Just! Like! Yahoo! Does!
Maybe this is just me but I think we should stop forcing websites to conform to each and every states individual laws. We should have a standard that each category of site in the US would have to conform to, but not each state. Certain things obviously would be exempt (like you can't ship alcohol to utah, so sites just plain wouldn't list utah in their shipping info). But I find it absolutely ridiculous that if I were able to pass a law here that says all websites must be in klingon, they have to conform to it. WTF?
here's what i find awful.
Is link to stories that aren't actually links to the story. It's a link to some other lame ass website that post the link to the story.
Here, I will say it slowly for you SFB's (Shit for Brains) that post these things.
If the link doesn't go to the original story, then you are posting the wrong link.
That means, if I click on the "Source" link and it goes to some webpage that actually has the "source" link on it, you fail. You suck, and you better get your 4 year old kid to show you how to post stories because you suck.
Be seeing you...
iWow, iThat's iHard iTo iDo.
But, yeah, nice work.
But we've barely met!
Rule 34. I'd say more, but there's the small matter of Rules 1 and 2.
There's an app for that..
+ 3.14 Transcendental
Bad Law. [and I have successfully sued telemarketers under the TCPA]
This means that, if I run an e-commerce site and let my customers sign up for a newsletter or "special offers" by email when they make a purchase, I can be sued when a kid uses dad's credit card to make a purchase and asks to sign up for special offers, even if he lies about his age.
If this exempted sites using the data from their OWN site to follow up BY EMAIL, it would be different.
If this only covered health information, it would be different.
If this provided a reasonable standard for verification, it would be different.
If this only applied to PREDATORY marketing, it would be different.
Unfortunately, it means that CellphoneShop can't send me the monthly discount code because, even though I opted-in as I made a purchase, they can't be sure I'm not really a kid in Maine and my email address is personal information.
and our state's record of proceedings. I highly recommend the exercise. People who have never had the experience have no idea what horrors don't make it out of committee to catch the eye of the news.
awesome.