Slashdot Mirror
SEC: Personal Information has Intrisnic Value
dillon_rinker writes "
In a nutshell, the SEC says that if web sites require a name and personal information in exchange for otherwise free stock, they are actually selling the stock.
IAKAL, but this strikes me as a Good Thing in terms of privacy protection. There is little in US law that protects invasion of privacy by corporations. If the govt says personal information is valuable, I would think it would be easier to protect it, given the materialistic orientation of US law. " So, essentially you can't "give" the stock away-the SEC says you are selling it-it's just personal information that's the monetary unit. It's an interesting idea-by making your personal information into something with an intrinsic value, you can "creatively" use other portions of the law to defend personal privacy.
No.
...that information wants to be free...
No, this is a BAD thing. If personal information is the monetary unit being exchanged, and you are giving up that unit in exchange for a service, you forfeit rights to that unit, and thus that information. If you buy a MacJr. for 99 cents, you no longer have the rights to those 99 cents.
Mark
: If personal information is the monetary unit being exchanged, and you are giving up that unit in exchange for a service, you forfeit rights to that unit, and thus that information. If you buy a MacJr. for 99 cents, you no longer have the rights to those 99 cents.
Or you can look at it a different way. If CoderShack(tm) writes a wordprocessor, and licenses it to customers, they do NOT lose right to the software, and redistribution is prohibited.
Ideally, the same should work for personal info, I give them the infomation for THEIR use, but I do not grant them the right to distribute it to spamcompanys telemarketers junkmailers and their ilk.
--Loki
Artists have a copyright in their name and likeness and those cannot be used for comercial purposes without their permission. I think it is a unique legal protection that deserves to be extended to everyone.
If your selling my name or "digital likeness" I want to be in with full copyright or I sue. I think it would be an effective deterent for people selling spam lists and that sort of crap. It's my info and if your not going to get my permission to use it you are clearly not allowed to use it for any purpose whatsoever. If you use it for one that involves money without my permission there could be strong punitive measures.
Intrinsic maybe?
Find a friend that trusts you, sell them your PI for $1K, and then spend the $1K buying their PI in turn. Document everything carefully.
You have now established that your PI is worth $1K, and if anyone cops it without your permission, you can haul them off to court for $1K + damages + lawyers fees.
Interesting. So, has anyone written their own personal "EULA" for their individual information?
: True, but only if you explicitly state that that is your intention. Without a specific statement of intent, you forfeit those rights.
It should require permission by default. Since it doesnt, a small disclaimer tagged at the end of your info (in www forms for exmaple) should work, I hope.
--Loki
: True, but only if you explicitly state that that is your intention. Without a specific statement of intent, you forfeit those rights.
Hmm, but are not certian things protected by default? I'm not a lawyer so I dunno...
--Loki
I believe this was mentioned earlier on /.,
but apparently the plot thickens...
http://www.cnn.com/US/9902/18/license.photos/
Hm. Looks your privacy is already a commodity.
Kinda makes me happy I'm not living in the U.S.
Next thing you know people will start collecting info on things like your academic records or credit history and sell the info to anyone willing to pay enough money for it! This is outrageous!
I am pretty sure that what is really meant is IANAL... I Am Not A Lawyer.. and that the reason behind the typo is indeed the fact that 'knot' and 'not' share their pronunciation.
IANAL fits right there in the context.
When you "sell" your personal information, you don't lose it. So a physical property model does not make sense. It should be like software - you are licensing the use of your personal info. Let's give these clowns some of their own medicine.
My modem required me to register and surrender personal info before I could use it. Much software does the same. This should be grounds for a class action lawsuit; we paid for these things and should not have to surrender further items of value in order to use them.
So if I sell someone my picture, I no longer own my face?
I am Smith, a banker.
Hi I am Knott, a lawyer.
~;-)
I think that this is a step in the right direction. I'm tired of going to download "free" software and ending up devulging my boxers vs. briefs preference.
Has anyone been to Microsoft's site recently? You can hardly do ANYTHING without creating an account that 'assists' your Microsoft experience. All I want is the 'free' stuff, but when I can't get to it without giving them my PI, then it's not free.
If it's free, then how does Safeway and other businesses make money selling buying trends?
Wish they would do that -- see the above discussion about PI at $1K -- if the manufacturer valued it that way, it would add legal standing to the notion. Remember that this isn't "Lex legis" type law we're talking about. It's commercial law, based on the "common law," which goes largely by precedent, i.e. previous rulings and experience..
Considering that corporations have the rights of individuals, this seems like a reasonable quid pro quo, if you ask me. Perhaps we should consider the intrinsic monitary value of Freedom of Speach. Oh, wait, that's different, now isn't it? Or is it?
There is still this pesky matter of having enough money to defend your personal informaiton from being stolen or illegally traded.
Over all, a very American solution to a very American (stupid nitch) problem. And, knocking par for the course again... causes even more side effect problems.
I used to hang with a photographer--he was paranoid about that sort of thing. As I understand it (IAKAFL) it hinges on the notion of a depiction. A picture of you is a depiction of you and is covered by copyright. You have to sign a permission for the photographer to use it; Danny carried blank permission slips everywhere! A picture of a crowd is not a depiction of any particular person and slips right on by...in the case of a news photgrapher, if you're involved in the story it's "fair use" and you don't have to sign a permission, but if you're just hanging around the copyright applies. Complicated.
> but less value to a company whose products I buy, and no value at all to a rock.)
That would explain why I haven't seen any rocks running around collecting personal information!!!
Information, such as name, address and phone number aren't valuable in and of themselves. Large collections of this grade of information is extremely valuable and becomes more valuable with the number of attributes against which it can be cross searched.
Of course, the ultimate personal information is genetic, The government is already cataloging this with blood samples given by all military recruits/canidates.
One could argue that this is a good reason to join the military... to insure that your genetic profile becomes a part of any government, uh, action. But I usually start sounding too paranoid, greedy geneish, starship trooper-like when go off on this angle.
I wonder how much money this treasure trove will draw from corporate America and which entities will get first dibs?
>[...] ask [2+2=4] if it wants to be free
Shit man, that's probably one of the most free pieces of information out there, published in innumberable school texts, tables and engraned in everyone's head past the 2nd grade. Even crack dealers who don't go to school know that piece of information and the meta-information of which it is a small part.
You need to choose your examples a little more carfully, least you make a fool of yourself in a public fourm.
I guess that Air Force project, started back in the 80s, to automate the identification of personel by facial features is ready to go mainstream.
Security/Privacy/Authenticity/Trust is increased by using something you know (a pasword, a private key, etc) combined with something you have (an access card, a one-time pad, a public key).
Everyone has a face, finger prints, blood, etc.
Visual confirmation, espically using survalence cameras, is the least envasive technique, therefor the most likely to be accepted by the public.
My information is mine.
No, you no longer own that copy of your face. The company, from that day forward, has the rights to distribute that copy of your face.
....how do they put the stock in your name if they don't ask for your information? BTW: That exit23b company only asked for a name and email address. That's not much. If they were willing to give me 10,000 shares, I'd gladly share more info with them!
Read Cringley's The Pulpit for some clues.
Damn hippy! Go hug a tree! Save a whale!
hehe
J/K
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away
What the heck kind of modem is this? Must be a Winmodem, since I've never heard of a external modem that does this. Maybe you mean the comm /fax software that comes with the modem? In any case there is a simple solution to the problem. Don't use your *Real Name* as it printed in the phone book, utility bills or your drivers licence. Use a modified form of it.
I am KNOT a lawyer!
:)
Only if the information provider specifically prohibits this sort of thing in their terms of use.
Well, the unauthorized user has to somehow acquire the information before they can use it in a way you don't like.
Let's assume that this information exists only in your friend's head, your head, and personal property of you and your friend. We'll further assume that you don't voluntarily offer this information to the unauthorized user.
There are only two ways the unauthorized user can acquire this information. One is by stealing the physical property which contains it. This is (obviously) prohibited by existing laws; it is not necessary to do the $1K deal with your friend to protect your property!
The second is if your friend voluntarily offers this information to the unauthorized user. Your plan doesn't prevent that at all, so you have no legal grounds for going after the unauthorized user.
What you could do to protect the information is to have everyone you give it to (your friend in this case) sign a non-disclosure agreement. Then you could sue your friend if he or she gives the information to an unauthorized user, but you'd still have nothing against the unauthorized users themselves.
In any case, the thousand-dollar trade doesn't gain you anything.
Since most sweepstakes require you to give them information for marketing purposes and permission
to use your likeness in promotional activities if you win, if the law is interpreted the same, these
sweepstakes could be considered lotteries and hence illegal.
If this is interpretation holds, this could kill most non-promotional sweepstakes in the US.
Slashdot readers usually use the traditional cypherpunks login to get at registration-required sites. This ruling seems to imply that since something of value is required from the user, the information/access received by the user is similarly valuable. Would this mean that setting up or using a cypherpunk account would be equivalent to stealing?
So can I now get something back from spammers who take my personal info from newsgroups? After all, they are taking my personal info, which has value, without me being compensated.
I wonder how this will affect various mailing lists, etc. . . that use my "personal info". Will they be subject to fees or taxes? Like the NY Times site, if they are taxed per person logging in, they might start charging for access.
"Eye halve a spelling chequer, It came with my pea sea, It plainly marques four my revue, Miss steaks eye kin knot sea"
Hard to tell if previous commenters noticed this:
The SEC, though, recently said "free" shares are actually being "sold" if stock recipients must surrender personal information that's valuable for company marketing.
It's not clear (at least to me) what constitutes "information that's valuable for company marketing." Perhaps the minimum information that is necessary to transfer ownership of stock, or even to open an account (name, address, etc.), does not qualify, but these sites are also requiring additional information as part of the deal that is valuable (income level, age, number of kids, etc.)? If so, then it would be possible to give away stock, but they just aren't doing so.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
I Am Killing All Lawyers? Now that's a step in the right direction... :P
To me this is not about the intrinsic value of one's PI but is instead a typical ploy/ruse by a US Federal Agency to gain regulatory control. While the SEC may feel justified in their ruling, I feel that this opens up Pandora's box with respect to PI and the internet. It is pretty obvious that this is only going to be resolved by a higher court decision.
Another example of this type of decision making is the FCC case concerning calls to one's ISP; are these calls local or long distance connections. If they are local, then the states and local governments have jurisdiction. If they are long distance, then the FCC takes control.
The US government (Secret Service) also better take a look at the SEC's ruling. They have been funding the development of a national database of driver's license photos. Some company, funded by the Feds, has purchased millions of driver id photos (and other info) from a few states. Hmmm, I wonder if this has intrinsic value?
The Washington Post reported today that the collection of license photos and other driver id info is being funded by the US Secret Service. A small company in New Hampshire is building the database. Some members of the US Congress have also been involved in helping to set up the arrangement.
A State judge in S. Carolina ruled that this database system is, "no more intrusive on the privacy of an individual than showing the driver's license itself."
Stay tuned folks, this one is going to get ugly.
(Well, one can deram...)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Does the IRS get a cut?
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
If we get the rest of the government to acknowledge this, we are making our personal information something that would be protected under the 'no person should be deprived of their property without due process' rules.
This would be a phenomenal advance in privacy law! (If we can get more than just the SEC to recognize it)..
I'm not talking about information you have learned... I'm talking about details of your life, your spending habits, your political/economic views.. all sorts of information of which you definitely have ownership, and is of value. For someone to spy on you, and/or track your habits is for them to steal your property... since they are selling something of yours, that you did not consent to giving them.
Information that you would learn in college is not private, and it's ownership is not undisputable... unlike your preferred brand of stereo hardware... the type of milk you drink.. etc...
Reading about the sort of stock giveaways that are available, in that news.com article, I was reminded a lot of pyramid marketing schemes... And a little of co-operative organisations...
I really, _really_ miss the days when Yahoo was a hobby site run by a couple of guys from their dorm rooms, when commercial traffic was banned from the backbone (and AOL didn't have 'Net access) and when Mosaic Communications' Netscape (anyone remember www.mcom.com?) was fucking cool because it displayed JPEGs...
Dodge
This is an excellent development. I think it was David Friedman who said that a good economist is concerned not merely with money, but with valuables in general.
(By the way, "intrinsic value" implies a value judgement without a valuer, which is meaningless. My name and address hold great value to my family and friends, but less value to a company whose products I buy, and no value at all to a rock.)
Extremes are quite useful at times, especially as counter-examples.
For you extreme-haters out there, please notice that I didn't rely solely on the rock extreme to make my point.
Besides, it's not true that nothing is valueable to a rock. Even a rock can be destroyed. Assuming the goal is the rock's continued existence, it's fairly obvious that a calm, grassy field is more valuable than a beach on the Atlantic where the rock would be pummelled by ocean waves.
As I see it, the SEC simply wants more things to regulate, so they make up an excuse to regulate a new business model. I don't think they are the least bit concerned about anyone's privacy.
I'd love to get hardware in exchange for personal info.
...Nothing interesting here. Just move along...
just think... you can tell credit reporting agencies that they have to pay you in order to sell your credit info to all those damn 'pre-approved' credit card people...
-ck
-- This sig is only a test. If this were a real sig it would say something witty. --
Um, I think I would do a Format c:\ or whatever the equivilent is.
Random question, how do you format a new drive that is being added in Linux?
Laugh, it's good for you!
1. Write down "2+2=4" and ask it if it wants to be free.
2. Do you really believe the sentiment behind that quote and that it doesn't apply to personal information? Fine. I want your home address and directions to it from the nearest major city. I want a map of your house with an X where your computer is. I want to know if you own a gun or a dog over 50 pounds. Information can be used to threaten your property or your person. Losing control of personal information can be frightening.
Perhaps a URL - most corporations have, somewhere on their main web site, a URL to their terms of use, legal disclaimers, etc.
Typo, not a misspelling - I Am Not A Lawyer.
:)
Sorry for the trouble
With the SEC declaring that personal info
is valuable, and is considered a monetary unit
on the net, does that mean I have a right to ask
for re-imbursement if I discover someone using
my personal information with out my authorization?