Slashdot Mirror
California to sell wage data to companies
jpatters writes "CNN is reporting that the state of California will be selling confidential wage data to private companies. They hope to raise $15 million over the next decade.
Read the
full story
"Yeargh-I love governments blurring the line between my life and companies.
The data will not be handed out, however, without the written permission of the individual.
That's a pretty solid piece of protection, there.
You're kidding right? All that means is that every credit, rent, insurance, or employment application will also now include language signing away privacy of your employment data.
Dave Williams
Vote the morons who vote to permit this out of office.
Oh, I forgot... only statist morons run for office anymore. Oh well, kill them all and start a new kind of government.
This would explain fed taxes, but I'm not sure if the state gets a full copy of the fed taxes. Have I said IANAL? Oh. Good. I just did...
So if you pay your Fed taxes, but not state, you may be able to get away with this as an excuse. You've paid your federal taxes, so there's no reason for the feds to come down on you.
Not in CA, not going to try it. Find your own lawyer. Not valid in all states. Hold away from hands. Not plummet please.
It's the utopian extremists who drive change.
Middle of the roaders like Bill Cliton are the ones who ultimately drive the status quo.
For example, yet another war for hidden economic purposes.
Note the Libertarian Party opposes this and virtually all other wars, especially those that have been prosecuted against greedy third-world counties, to benefit the greedy American businesses to whom the MOTR politicians gladly provide corporate welfare.
Examples of this include the Banana Wars for Dole and the Vietnam War for Dow and DuPont.
If Dole wants to sell bananas from Central America and the Central Americans want a fair return the US MOTR politicians shouldn't be killing Central Americans for Dole, the same was true regarding rubber trees in Vietnam, the same is true for Big Oil in the Middle East, and the same is true for whichever Big American business stands to benefit from separating Kosovo from Yugoslavia.
If I recall correctly the MOTR US Government, who is protecting you from greedheads, is at once trying to attacking M$ and forcing all its components to purchase NT in an effort to standardize.
We libertopians find that very bizarre indeed.
Let's look at the face of it, greedy IBM was the big bad monster, it was beaten by it's own progeny, and in the course of time M$ will also fall under it's own weight and failure to progress unless the MOTR politicians act to save it.
"They wouldn't do that, M$ is evil," I hear you say.
Let's consider what the MOTR republicrats have done in the past - namely the big bucks bail out of Crapler Motors.
You're probably to young to remember how this worked or didn't pay attention to it: to wit the government "lent" Crapler many billions of dollars that Crapler had to pay back.
Crapler did pay back the loan, but only after the US government had purchased many more billions of dollars of Crapler cars and trucks.
For about five or six years the US goverment fleet was almost exclusively Crapler products.
Note today with the exception of Jeep Cherokees very few government vehicles are Craplers, funny even the feds avoid buying crap.
Granted M$ is evil and Bill is the Anti-Christ, in the Libertartian philosophy, if M$ goes under due to Linux, it goes under.
Your government on the other hand will freak out and bail out and probalby try to ban Linux since it of course is causing layoffs of M$ employees, MSCE's and worst of all is cutting into the donations of Bill to the the MOTR politicians favorite cause - themselves.
The beauty of libertartianism is that we defend your right to do what you want, if you own a small business and don't want the government to require you to buy M$ products to do business, we will fight that fight too.
But of course the regulation utopians can't permit the free market to settle such issues because business people are greedy (why be in business if you aren't - you should be in charity work instead) and might create a new M$ giant.
Some more reading for you, after you actually learn about Libertarianism and stop parroting something someone told you:
P.J. O'Rorke "Eat the Rich"
The sad thing is, that the company California wants to contract with, as well as CA officials, say that the database will stay in CA and will be controlled by CA.
OK, so the dorks at the company are too stupid to bank the transaction data they do get anyways? So they don't get it all at once. Big deal. Look at how much that hasn't stopped Microsoft for gleaning info from its users who hit their websites.
This is data collected by the STATE, and providing the info is NOT VOLUNTARY.
I'm a hard core Libertarian myself. Want to try to dismiss my complaint as "socialist whining"?
-jcr
as far as I can recall, when you get a driver's license you are actually agreeing to a contract, in which you waive certain rights. also, when you break a traffic law (ie. clause in the contract) you are not entitled to a trial by jury, but instead are only tried by a judge, since your offense is only a breach-of-contract. I wonder what other kinds of things have this sort of crap tied in. my 2 cents.
EOM
Problem is, they'll pass it by saying that this protects you from having it happen if you don't want it to. Then you'll find that you have to give this permission in order to get a driver's license or file a tax return, etc.
Not necessarily a bad thing. After all, they must have my written consent.
Also think about how many times you have handed over income info voluntarily to commercial entities already.
Having said all that, I still have nagging doubts that there will be slip-ups and just plain against-the-rules actions on the part of the responsible people.
. . . under free enterprise, the government cannot engage in commercial business.
Says who? Under who's definition of free enterprise? Yours, I guess, but there's nothing about "free enterprise" as a general notion which inherently conflicts with the practice of "free enterprise" as a general notion. Get it? No, you don't get it.
Let's approach it this way: Please explain to me why "free enterprise" is inconsistent with the government selling stuff. It doesn't count if you just screech "gummint bad! gummint bad! bad bad!" at me. I'm sorry, but I'm hoping to see some facts'n'logic here.
Do you think you should be handed whatever you want by another individual?
Their effort and their costs in providing you with goods or services has no value, so you shouldn't have to pay?
Isn't that socialism?
I don't recall having any business require me to do business with them.
At the very worst I might have someone rip me off by charging me for something from which I did not derive the value I was promised and then I'd have to decide whether it was worth suing them.
Are laws that permit due recourse what you have a problem with?
Intermediately there might be only one store in town and it would inconvenience me to go elsewhere to buy what I want.
Is you time so valuable to the universe that laws permitting you to freely travel are what you have a problem with?
How in fact does going to store A, farmer B, or growing my own food mean that a business is stealing from me?
What laws did the government make that made that ok for me to make that decision?
Your argument is silly one the surface and since it is superficial, it is silly all the way through.
I don't see where you come off call Libertartians facist, you obviously are clueless. Again I'd suggest a little self education before continuing your blathering.
Trade between individuals predates all governments and will postdate all governments.
...bullshit.
The goverment should just do what I say, damned it!
...are disposed to dismissing governments for excessive use of "dubious logic".
it's all in the semantics, that sometimes go awash in money, power and politics...
Thanks. I had forgotten about state labor/unemployment reporting.
DonkPunch
CA enacts so much bullsh*t into law and pulls so many boners that I think it should get its own icon here on /.
This kind of shit is why I moved from California to Oregon. A classic case in point: Several years ago, much to their suprise, the CA state goverment had a surplus in tax revenue. Governor Deukmajian held a press conference to tell people all his wonderful plans for the money. This little old retired schoolteacher chimed in with the comment "but by the state constitution, aren't you supposed to rebate that money to the taxpayers?" The Gov's ill-considered response: "Yes, but we've got forty lawyers working on a way around that right now."
Quite a concept: The state government, spending a great deal of taxpayer money on lawyers in order to look for a way to VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION and get away with it!!!!
I've found Oregon to be much less corrupt...
You can't seriously compare goverment action with free enterprise.
:)
Of course I can. Wealth is wealth. Power is power. The difference between Stalin and the GOP is simple and clear: Under Stalin, government and business are symbiotic; under the GOP (or the Libertarians), government and business are symbiotic. The difference? Oh, yeah, the difference. Heh heh. Oops. There isn't one. Sorry about that.
They're getting it from employers or individuals by force of law or by withholding privileges (the ability to drive).
My landlord gets US$750.00 out of my every month by threatening to withhold my privilege of living in his building.
You were saying?
(Okay, sure, the legal theory behind driving being a "privilege" rather than a "right" may be a bit obscure, to put it tactfully. Then again, driving wasn't thought of when the Constitution was drafted, so for the Supreme Court to construe driving as a "right" would require (gasp, horror!) judicial activism -- so fuuuuck yooouuu, baby!
If you don't like it, vote. This is the baby, this is the bathwater. Don't mix 'em up.
The best way to control this sort of thing is to take away the money. How about a class-action suit against companies that sell your data to recover profits that should be rightfully yours.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This is an issue that is much thornier than just good and bad. It deals with the ways in which we expect a government to interact with the economy of its nation. Most governments are not particularly oriented towards practicing capitalism themselves. They may support capitalism by encouraging fair trade practices, competetion, etc., but the government itself is rarely ever an active participant in the marketplace.
Taxes for example, are quite uncapitalist; in the immediate sense, the government takes its citizens' money in return for not jailing them. However, when the question is asked, "Why do we pay taxes?" the answer is invariably that taxes pay for civil services. However, these services are not immediate or appearent. This is not a trade that many people would make with a private citizen or organization.
That is because we don't expect governments to engage in free trade. If a government were to do so, there could easily be conflicts of interest when the goverment deals with the private sector and its ability to govern objectively and effectively would be put into question. (This is already an issue with U.S. military spending policies.)
Posted by Uncle Humph:
Yeah, the next time the government says they wish to collect information only to be used for good and virtuous purposes, look at it with a jaundiced eye. DNA banks, encryption keys, clipper chips, embedded registration, are all examples of having our privacy invaded by the very entity which is supposed to protect it.
This needs to be halted.
I bet if CA threatened to sell the profit/loss figures for privately held corporations (which of course they know) then that would be stopped Real Quick.
"Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
Period.
End of story.
This is free enterprise. The state of CA has something to sell, and somebody wants to buy it. If you gave them your information, that's your problem. It's theirs now. Deal with it.
I've heard enough socialist whining about this. It's legitimate business. Shut up and get out of the way. It doesn't concern you. If any problems arise, the free market will correct them.
This is a step in the wrong direction. Individuals need *more* protection from the data harvesters and nosy would-be employers out there. It is not enough that prospective cannot require you to provide your salary history (they'll just ignore your resume if you don't), I want it made illegal for them to even ask for it. What in the *hell* does my salary history have to do with my ability to do my job? Fortunately, most companies have a policy of refusing to divulge this information to anyone, so I lie and inflate my salary history (no one will contradict what I say). Maybe I'll get lucky and get a huge raise. The biggest raises happen when switching jobs anyway right (because in-house raises are never as big as they should be as switching jobs proves)? If even asking were illegal, we wouldn't all have to play these games.
In the US, you apply to a lender, any lender, so long as you want to do business with them. Even the bank where your money winds up (i.e. paycheck deposit, electronic, etc) requires that you tell them income.
On every credit card app. I've ever seen, there's a box: "Annual Income" You can also opt to put more or less in the "Secondary Income" box.
So, tell me, can you switch banks easily?
At last, a reason not to move to California. I'll stick to my colder climate.
What's scariest is not that companies can request the info - because you do have the right to refuse that your info be released. It's that what's to prevent, say, a bank from REQUIRING that you release your info to it? If you want a loan, you have to release your info. If you want to open a frigging checking account, you'll have to release your info. If you want to get hired by a company... if you want to get insurance... etc etc etc - essentially, the provision that you can refuse to have your information released, is like saying you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test - you'll be worse off if you refuse. So it's a worthless provision.
Massachusetts (where I live) doesn't do this yet, but you can be damned sure corporations in it (and every state) would love to get their grubby little paws on some of that info.
Sorry if someone else put this first but I just saw this over at CNN.
On the sarcastic side, it looks like this is Gray Davis' first decision since election! Rather than make decisions, he has asked the courts to decide. Then when the Lt. Governor tried to force Davis to make a decision, he lost his parking space! [Sorry for that. Just wanted to put my $.02 in]
And yet the junk mail just keeps coming...
Wonderful! Now what else can I buy from your duly elected officials. Surely, they will find ample rea$on to collect even more detailed, personal information about you. Ah, I love it! --people who'll put up with this don't deserve their freedoms and the few who resent it can be forced to buy them back in an illusory form. They'll work harder, "play" harder, (that is, spend dough harder) to become not just comfortable, but respectable. Not realizing they have in fact less privacy than a common criminal. It's the best business of all: the customer is never satisfied. The higher they climb the more pressure on them to work harder, play harder, and naturally, the more surveillance. You can't buy privacy in your country, you can only move. As I was telling President Milosevic the other day...
whoops, that's another thread for another time!
-ta,
the man
surely you jest, ac
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
"The Man" is a bit vague. Certainly many folk already know many parts of that, and guess the rest. This, however, is a different matter. This restricts the variance in the sample data collection, which allows for much simpler and more powerful statistical tools to be applied. Ten years ago the census data wasn't available for ANYTHING at less than a block-face level. And financial data was only available at higher levels of aggregation. That's why all these private companies sprang up to collect the same information. So now the state is planning to put them out of business.
I don't even classify that as Socialism, which someone else claimed. I don't know what to call State-owned Monopoly enterprise. Maybe that is a form of Socialism. I'm sure that if this effort is successful, that we will see further extensions of the principle.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Honestly, I can't remember what the budget of
California is, but this invasion of our privacy
is supposed to raise "$15 million over the next
decade"??? What kind of idiot politician
decided to come up with a program that any
fool KNOWS would cause controversy but would
only raise a measly $15 million?
Amd where, pray tell, would those revenues
be going?
If government didn't spend so much money,
then it might not spend so much time
thinking up new ways to invade our lives
for profit.
Unlike California, Texas does not have a state income tax (a big reason why I live here). How does the Texas state government get wage information on its citizens? Is federal income tax info forwarded by the federal government to the Texas state government?
The article said that Texas sells _similar_ data, which makes me think that the data may be more along the lines of driver's license, vehicle registration, or birth certificate info. I don't think it's terribly hard to obtain someone's home address based on their license plate number, for example.
Either way, the selling of personal information by a local government is incredibly intrusive. It alarms me that elected officials have the cajones to even suggest such an idea, let alone implement it.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
that I work in CA only on contract basis. They'll never get good numbers.
-- Improve Windows - Buy a Mac!
"That's because we're not shooting them on campus anymore."
Nowadays the students are so busy shooting each other on campus that the government just can't get a shot in edgewise.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Why can't a government be useful for something for a change? If I wanted my personal data sold to the highest bidder, I'd sell it myself. I don't personally mind the lack of privacy so much as the fact that someone else is getting rich on my data -- without my permission. Instead of outlawing vaguely-defined net obscenities and swear words, how about actually protecting citizens? (And I hate spam as much as the next person. I feel it should be covered under the telecom act which banned fax spam. Especially email that attempts to sell items or pornography -- how would you feel if your kid got email like that? At least if it's on the web they have to actively seek it out. Spam is target-blind and you should have to opt-in to receive it.)
I'd like to see some legislation outlawing the sale or share of personal data by corporations without consent or compensation.
This is exploitation, pure and simple. You can't even opt out of giving your information to a state or federal government.
We want endless gardens of data, where the bits can flower, flourish and reproduce. -- Andy Mueller-Maguhn
1984 is just 15 years late.
:)
thats ok, the government never does anything on schedule...
1984 is probably over budget too
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
In North Carolina, you must fill out a form requesting that the state not disclose this information in order to "turn it off". The government is supposed to protect it's citizens from this kind of wholesale invasion of privacy. Instead, they want in on this crookedness.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Or can any citezen pay a fee for information and get it?
Could be very useful. If a company can get the data, why not anyone?
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
Posted by generic kewl tech reference:
I DIDN'T give this information to the state. They collected it from my employer without me having any say in it, unless I just happened to miss the 'opt out of unemployment insurance' option when I was hired.
It's not legitimate business if I sell information that doesn't belong to me. If I start using my CD-R to run off copies of Windows 95 and selling them, how well to you think "Well, you gave me the CD-ROM, people want to buy it, it's mine now, deal with it" is going to go over?
And yes, I know we're dealing with copyright laws that don't make my example that simple or applicable, but I still think there's a valid point there.
And, while I'm ranting in a paranoid frenzy, didn't Machiavelli say that no group or person willingly gives up political power?
And I'm not sure what your situation is exactly, but you're probably benefiting somehow from PA services.
--
"...When do the state officals come up forsale?"
During the fundraising portion of every election cycle, but it's a private, by invitation only sale, closed to the public and the press as much as possible.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
There is a program for inmates where they can earn something like $.10 an hour manufacturing various goods. . . . Thus, a government program has been putting many companies out of business and taking jobs from law-abiding citizens.
The prison thing is getting scary all around. For one thing, we have private prisons; AFAIK, that's a big chunk of the inmate labor pool. Second, we have the prison guards' union in California (the largest union in the state, again AFAIK) successfully lobbying for minimum sentencing laws (for whose benefit, one asks?). And the private-prison industry throughout the whole country likewise pushing its interests. Those interests are sold to the voters as "getting tough on crime", of course. And how about those inmates getting paid well below minimum wage? Well, they're "bad people", so anything that happens to them is okay. Hmm. Anything? Well, sure, it's hard to feel too bad about a murderer not getting an even break. But is this about "feelings", or about justice? Even if it were about "feelings", we could also consider the "feelings" of the people who lose their light manufacturing jobs to prison inmates. Of course, it evens out because they'll probably end up in prison too, and get their jobs back with free room'n'board to boot.
And of course, everybody is familiar with the fact that we have a higher percentage of our population in prison than the Soviet Union, or Communist China, or South Africa during Apartheid.
Excuse me? "My written consent"? Who must have your written consent? How did they get it?
I have never willingly provided salary information to anyone. Does "the state" have my consent if they say "agree or starve", and I feign agreement? Not hardly, no matter what it shows on the written page.
True, there have been worse violations. That doesn't make this good, desireable, worthy, etc.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
...this is a Bad Thing(tm).
And to think, TX (where I am) has been doing it for years.
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Free enterprise is when two INDIVIDUALS chose to trade between themselves.
Socialism is when the GOVERNMENT steals your property and provides it to someone else.
No, Free Enterprise (the Holy Ideal of Free Enterprise that the "libertarian" pod people pray to) is when a business steals from you, and then makes laws that say it's okay for them to do that.
It's a sort of a combination of the two. Historically, that combination is known as "fascism", but let's not split hairs.
The Man already has a pretty good idea how much you make now anyway. He knows your zip code, your age, your sex, how many kids you have, your credit history, the cost of your house, whay you buy with your credit cards, who you work for, where you went to college, what car you drive, your voting history, your criminal history, your driving record, your race, your eye color.
Jeez, he probably knows where you surf.
It's a done deal, dudes, the Man knows.
--
maybe governments have the same goal (they are people too) but they make it wrong way: mostly, they are making communities (a.k.a nations, states, ...) where (almost) everybody works (produce value) BUT only small group is taking profit (mostly politicians themselves + rich and/or powerfull people).
this private-info-selling is perfect example of such attitude.
and why they are doing so? are they braind-damaged? do they forget that they are people and citizens too?
power corrupts.
that's why we have to watch our politicians very close and carefully, give them advices AND criticize them when they do something wrong. and (of course) take more action when they are ignoring us.
democracy is not perfect but something better has not been invented yet (nor taken in practise). but we have to try to achieve better living. at least for our children (and their children, ...).
why do people bring children to live when they cause them suffer then? (why i'm asking that? take a look at poluted environment, screwed laws, dumb policies, problems solved short-sightedly, ...)
hany
This is not free enterprise, IT IS SOCIALISM.
Free enterprise is when two INDIVIDUALS chose to trade between themselves.
Socialism is when the GOVERNMENT steals your property and provides it to someone else.
The data sold by California was stolen under the force of law from private parties.
I suggest you actually take some time learn about free enterprise, privacy, and personal rights:
http://www.cato.org
http://www.lp.org
http://www.aclu.org
From: your name [you@big-company.com]
Subject: wage data sales
To: eddcomm@edd.ca.gov
Hello.
I understand (from an L.A. Times article, reported on www.cnnfn.com)
that you plan to begin selling wage data to banks and other
businesses in the near future. As reported, you will require my
written authorization to sell information about me, but I am concerned
that I have already inadvertently given that permission.
Please let me know whether your department has any information about
me in its files, and whether you have explicit or implicit permission
to sell that information (whether or not you currently have it).
Also, please tell me how to withhold, in perpetuity, my authorization
for release to any non-government entity.
Thank you,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone
Thanks, guy! (I'm the original poster.)
You're right about that invariably thing. I guess I got caught up in the moment. Absolute facts are hard to come by and this certainly isn't one of them.
My government spending example (was: military spending) is one about the government's preferential purchasing policy for goods produced by prison inmates. There is a program for inmates where they can earn something like $.10 an hour manufacturing various goods. This tends to keep them out of trouble and gets them more rehabilitated than the normal prison "activities." The downside is that these programs get first bid at many government contracts. It is really even a misnomer to call it a bid because the program can ask for a contract and get it - at any price - even though many of these products are of inferior quality compared to similar, privately manufactured goods. Thus, a government program has been putting many companies out of business and taking jobs from law-abiding citizens. These are the dangers of government getting into the business world.
...UNICORP It's a government run business that makes all sorts of products using prison labor. Your tax money has probably purchased man UNICORPS products, it's just that you don't know it.
...and in actuality, you don't know a lot of things about your goverment. In fact, there are so many things you don't know about your government, if CNN reported only on things you didn't know about your government 24hours a day 7days a week, they probably would have time to report the things that you do know about your govermnet (like the latest details of NASA's space programs).
Probably not. The Wall Street Journal had and article the other day about courts dismissing cases that use dubious logic ("I'm a citizen of the state, not the US", "income taxes are illegal/immoral etc.") to challenge tax laws (federal ones) and even fining the plaintiffs. But then again IANAL.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
I wonder if this is a valid legal defense for refusing to file a CA state tax return... "I didn't want them selling my personal data, so I refused to give it to them!"
Why bother voting? I laughed and cheered when the fed building blew in up OK city, even if a bunch of neo-nazis did it.
Are names attached to salary data, or is it just going to be anonymous data about how much workers at certain companys earn, etc? If my name's not attached, I couldn't care less. I'd die of embarassment if someone found out how much I was making.
The state should keep a database of how many which citizens' salaries were queried, and then every quarter mail them a check for like 15% of the gross. Or at the very least use it as a tax deduction.
I'm curious--how is this any different from me copying a movie off HBO and then selling the tape for 10 bucks?
--GAck
3. Profit!
2. ???
1. On Soviet Slashdot, a Beowulf cluster of alien Natalie Portman overlords welcomes YOU!
Loans? Most of the time you get them in the bank where your wages end up (I don't know about all countries on this side but it's pretty common that the employer will only pay you through a bank). :-)
So the bank knows all ins and outs already
TA
Remember more than half of the prisoners in the US are there for economic/political crimes against laws of dubious constitutional validity, namely drug crimes and tax crimes.
All of the prisoners are in jail against their will. If you see the need to jail men principly for being black and poor don't blame them for what it costs.
Smaller prisons and fewer guards to house violent offenders only would cost less.
Whoa!
What a cool post.
If a government were to [engage in free trade], there could easily be conflicts of interest when the goverment deals with the private sector and its ability to govern objectively and effectively would be put into question. (This is already an issue with U.S. military spending policies.)
Jesus, I didn't even think of that. You're absolutely right (IMHO, of course). I never expected to see rational, informed discussion of this subject on Slashdot (or anywhere else, for that matter
As for the military spending, I'm reminded of the fact that (back when conservatives were conservatives, rather than right-wing radicals), a guy named Dwight Eisenhower coined the phrase "military-industrial complex". He wasn't pleased about it, either.
. . . the answer is invariably that taxes pay for civil services. However, these services are not immediate or appearent.
Umm, I'm not with you on that one. In principle, it's neither one way or the other; in practice, what you describe is often the case, but not invariably. For example, I used to live near a fire department. My Tax Dollars at Work! I don't mean that sarcastically, either; those guys are highly trained pros w/ expensive equipment, and IMHO worth every penny. There are other examples -- though of course there is a vast supply of examples to back you up, as well. My point isn't that you're "wrong", but that this particular issue is more complex than what you described.
Now what's really missing is free access to data collected by the state about us. Europeans have that, and it is scary how much BS needs to be corrected sometimes when an individual takes the time and effort to check. ;-)
Then again, I prefer for them to sell BS to companies rather than the truth about me
"If I wanted my personal data sold to the highest bidder, I'd sell it myself. "
It's not the highest bidder: it's any bidder who's willing to pay what the great state of California wants. Just another day in the land of the fee and the home of the slave.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
The arguments that one should be paid for the information are basically invalid. The state of California has to use these revenues for it's own programs, meaning that the citizens of California will theoretically get more value from their state government.
On the other hand, this information wasn't volunteered, so it should be freely available to all or protected from the prying eyes of all. Anything else would be economic favoritism.
Thank you for not thinking.
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsf rameset9.htm
.:.
talk to 'em, my fellow californians...
--
: tedd
> About the only thing you can get college students to protest about these days is beer and drugs.
That's because we're not shooting them on campus anymore.
Humm... maybe we should start again...
This is not free enterprise, IT IS SOCIALISM.
So sales of mailing lists, demographic data, etc. by market research firms qualifies as socialism as well? (I think this was the parallel that the original poster was attempting to draw.)
Free enterprise is when two INDIVIDUALS chose to trade between themselves.
Agreed.
Socialism is when the GOVERNMENT steals your property and provides it to someone else.
And laissez-faire Free Enterprise is when large corporations snuff out small "weak and marginal" small businesses and economically enslave citizens. Geez, talk about a slippery slope! You see, it works both ways.
The data sold by California was stolen under the force of law from private parties.
Again, agreed to a point. However, the data was not 'stolen' - it was acquired in the process of collecting revenue (OH, those abhorrent TAXES!), which is legal by state law.
I suggest you actually take some time learn about free enterprise, privacy, and personal rights:
http://www.cato.org
Free-market Washington think tank with Libertarian leanings... that take laissez-faire to the illogical extreme. Interestingly, they support monopolies (for example, defending Microsoft and intellectual property rights) and challenge *ANY* environmental/health research, often using specious evidence based heavily on economic rather than scientific or sociological analysis. A bit narrow in focus, don't you think?
http://www.lp.org
I wholeheartedly support political parties outside the wholly corrupt bipartisan system (I'm a Green myself). My differences with the Cato Institute apply to the Libertarian Party as well.
http://www.aclu.org
Card-carrying member myself. A very necessary organization, especially nowadays...
Anyhow, IMO Libertarianism is a utopian fantasy -- the diametric opposite to utopian Socialism/Communism. The focus on liberty has enormous populist appeal. However, true Liberty must be checked by responsibility - admittedly a basic tenet of the Libertarian Party.
It is the denial of greed that makes the platform extremely short-sighted and tenuous at best; we've already witnessed the baneful effects of unchecked greed in various Third-World countries as well as the United States in the early 20th century.
The answer lies somewhere in the middle, but definitely not in the status quo bipartisan system that we have now. Parties outside of the Democrat/Republican hegemony have a large responsibility in educating John Q. Public.
My $0.02.
~AC
The data will not be handed out, however, without the written permission of the individual.
That's a pretty solid piece of protection, there. Frankly, there are thousands of infinitely more horrifying compromises of our privacy out there - like the sharing of our medical information by insurers for the purpose of *denying us coverage* for existing conditions - but since that happens in the private sector, it doesn't get the same "1984"-ish read.
Much public information about all of us is already publicly available, due to the FOIA. Our legal histories and our property holdings, for example.
All residents of California should mail a letter to their legislature stating the following:
I, ~~~~~, do not wish to have my income information sold to any outside companies.
Signed,
~~~~~~~
This would quickly get this thing gonzo.
>Also think about how many times you have handed over income info
>voluntarily to commercial entities already.
Whatwhatwhatwhat?? Is this a common thing to do in the U.S.? On this other side of the pond it's *not* common. If some "commercial entity" had asked me to tell them my income I would have told them to go **** themselves, as would 99% of the people I know.
TA
The UK has a law about this that protects citizens and makes what California did illegal...
Become an incorporated consultancy, pay your taxes to the state and federal government revealing how much you "made" (i.e. how much you paid yourself).
Have a friend, who is also an incorporated consultancy, buy your data from the state and compete against you for a key contract.
Sue the state for trade secret violations. Premesis: The state is selling information to potential competitors that potentially makes you less competitive, consequently unlawfully interfering with free enterprise, causing detriment and damage to your business. Have your friend called in as a supporting but, unknown to the defense, hostile witness for the state. Split the damages awarded three ways (lawyer, business A, business B). Kick back, have a beer and chuckle about how politicians and government lawyers are too stupid to cut it on the other side of the legal fence.
Who's behind this thing anyway?
Head hunters?
Corporate HR offices?
Secret goverment factions who want to outsource the taxation process?
I mean, it really sounds like a plot feature in a "B" grade movie... oh... that's right... Goverment (espically state government) is modeled directly around "B" grade movie plots...
This must be a troll. You can't seriously compare goverment action with free enterprise. Had you voluntarily given or sold this information to a business it would be one thing. However, having this information taken from you by force of law and then declared to be owned by California to do with it as it wishes is another entirely.
The states aren't getting this personal information by simply asking. They're getting it from employers or individuals by force of law or by withholding privileges (the ability to drive). That's coercion which takes the "free" right out of the enterprise.
As much as I like databases and all, my real question is: When do the state officals come up forsale?
I've heard that the companies requesting data will be expected to seek permission from the people they are seeking data on. But Caliornia has no plans to enforce this requirement, except through the honor system.
Their greed will get the better of them. I wonder how many years it will be until some bright Senator gets the idea that the Census Bureau could sell personal (rather than demographic) data to the highest bidders.
Wait a minute. What do they mean similar materials? I've been working in MN for four years now and never heard of this before. Does anyone know exactly what the rules are these other states are following?
This might explain why I keep on getting junk mail from banks wanting to sell me a mortgage on my house while I still live in an apartment.
Stay clear of MN. This state sucks.
Nice to know that Big companies run america, you remember all the american hype about BIG BROTHER? i got an AOL CD sent to me recently, with MY name and the address, ive called AOL to disclose where they got my information from, they refused said it was a random thing, random my ass, i will not tollerate some asshole making money off me, disclosing my private details, so ive instructed my lawyer to send them a letter requesting information they have on me, this is legal for me to do in australia, and europe, i suggest you americans get off your asses and stop your government from doing this stupid thing, otherwise the "LINE" will be pushed back further and further, so pretty soon theyll know everything about you, the government i can understand, BUT A COMPANY????? what gives them the right, free enterprise is only good for the rich.
This may be a disturbing thought to ya'll but the government has become a corporation like any other. They just want to make money any way possible, including marketing deals. This is not surprising, since this past century in the US has turned our country from a constitution-based society to a quasi-socialist corporation. "Civil" rights are held against constitutional rights, and the freedom to follow the bill of rights is being shut off day by day. 1984 is just 15 years late.
Lowmag.net
California has implied consent to give any driver licensed there a test to determine blood alchol. I wonder how soon that your permission for this giving out of your data is just that voluntary.
"Oh, you implied you gave your consent when you began working in this state. Didn't you see the fine print that is supposed to be displayed at your employers?"
--- If you don't want to know the answer, don't ask the question.
Remember the uproar when states tried to sell driver's license photos. This one will be even worst. The people who proposed it either have been living on the other side of the moon or have IQ's lower than the room temperature.
Well, if they paid ME to get my information then it would not be so bad. Figure that if they are going to get 5-10 bucks per person/request, let em send me $1 per transaction that involves my information. Afterall, there should be some incentive to allow the govt to disseminate our personal data.
Timing is everything
The sad fact is that we get exactly the government that we deserve.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Well then theres a violation of the 5th amendment. The state is obtaining what may be (this is the lynchpin) your IP without paying you. I should mention this to my dad, he does eminent domain law (although real property, not intellectual)
Heck, you might want to tie this in with the Echelon thing, along with the 4th amendment (and possibly others)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.