Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy 315
jeffy124 writes: "Beginning Feb 15, a new Vermont consumer protection law takes effect requiring companies doing business with people in VT to require opt-in before they can sell/share that customer's personal information. Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers."
Hurt consumers? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Hurt consumers? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hurt consumers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like 20 cents for every time my name address and phone # has been sold...I could buy a couple new toys for my computer.
Re:Hurt consumers? (Score:2)
In places that it is, it works as an interesting compromise. Businesses hate opt-in systems because they know they have nothing to offer, and no one is going to bother to opt-in without knowing what it'll get them. Under a system where the information is the person's property, they can decide to sell it as a commodity to businesses, and businesses get to skip the bullshitting about how they respect the customers' privacy and re-sell all the information people are willing to sell to them.
Re:Hurt consumers? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hurt consumers? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, I might not get all that porno spam that I apparently want.
Legal options (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, maybe I should do my research, but I'm busy doing research for other things. Maybe I shouldn't be wasting my time here too!
Re:Legal options (Score:2)
If you cant kill the beast at least we can use them to take down the spammers.
oddly.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:oddly.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm all for opt-in as much as the next person. But with 2 millions new internet users every month, we aren't the target audience of opt-in or opt-out. And since tech-savvy users know how to alter their e-mail address and switch between temporary free accounts without too much disruption, the opt-in vs. opt-out argument really becomes a fight over new (and often ignorant) internet users.
I have a friend who works in ad sales for a major
And when does opt-in really make a difference? How many e-mails for you have to receive with the subject "re: your e-mail about HOW TO MAKE $$$$$$ FROM HOME IN YOUR SPARE TIME" from unreadjunk@hotmail.com (yes, that is my real address, and no, you can't send me e-mail there unless you are on my address list) before you realize no one cares about in vs out... you get spam anyway.
E-mail advertising use to be the next best thing. Heck, they even had studies saying we wanted this crap. These days, nobody does. Now they have studies saying we don't mind - make that want, even - SMS spam. When will they learn? When the newbies to the internet stop clicking on them. When the newbies stop buying from them. When the AOL users of the world learn better. But as long as those users are out there, they keep what is left of the internet free for the rest of us. I have a proxy that filters ads. I get 3 spams a month. And I don't pay a cent for a single site I visit. But the newbies do - with their clicks and their time.
Re:oddly.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really - even tech-savvy users can't change their business or role accounts. I receive e.g. about 100 pieces of spam a day on webmaster at bero dot evenintelligentspambotsshouldntseethis dot org.
It's similar for official contact addresses like security at spambotgotohell dot redhat dot com (which we can't change either...) - and address filters really aren't an option for those either.
Re:oddly.. (Score:2)
Re:oddly.. (Score:2)
Heh heh. I almost never accept cookies. That probably explains why I keep getting the damn 'if this is flashing, you're a winner!" ad. Every time I think "I can't believe there are still suckers who fall for that." It actually all makes sense now.
Point for the People (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:In an unrelated case... (Score:2)
Huh? Apart from the extortion part, I don't get your point.
I mean, in any major city, there's lots of people who want to consume drugs, gamble, and fuck. And when they want those things, they opt in - they go to the speakeasy, dealer, card table, play the numbers game, or whorehouse. For the most part, Lefty the Torch is providing things people want.
Telemarketers and spammers, on the other hand...
Ask us? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ask us? (Score:2)
So why don't we make snail-mail spam opt-in? Because the whole USPS is dependent on it. Something like half of all snail-mail is commercial advertising. If we didn't allow these mailings, the USPS would tank and no one would be able to send snail-mail. While the same isn't true about e-mail (yet?) - once we regulate one but not the other, the companies have the valid argument of unfair treatment. What we really need, as consumers, is to publicize which companies are fighting these "opt-in" laws... that's some good-ol-fashion bad-pr for them
Re:Ask us? (Score:2, Interesting)
Email, however, there's no costs. You type up a message, often poorly spelled, buy/spider a list of emails, and click send. No targeting (usually). They don't care. Thus, the signal to noise ratio is much higher. I've gotten exactly two emails that I felt targeted any interests of mine. I read them, I visited the site. I didn't purchase since they weren't something I was looking for at the time. I've also received hundreds of "watch me masturbate" emails, stuff I don't want, etc. Once they start paying to send emails (more than just bandwidth), then they can argue equal treatment.
Re:Ask us? (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't get so caught up in treating online and offline businesses "equally" and "fairly" that you neglect to see that when aspects of their conduct are different it is altogether right and proper to treat them differently.
Goddammit, people. This ain't rocket science.
Re:Ask us? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Ask us? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ask us? (Score:2)
The USPS is a US Goverment Entity- although taxpayers don't directly subsidized USPS operations directly, the USPS still gets perks in the form of not paying ANY real estate taxes on any of its buildings, not paying ANY corporate taxes. It doesn't pay to register their vehicles nor do they get parking/speeding/violation tickets. It hasn't needed taxpayer subsidy since 1982- maybe that's when advertisers started picking up the paycheck and increasing the amount of bulk snailmail? Today, 34 cents is much really. But getting rid of the bulk snailmail would only hurt us in the end.
ON the other hand, getting rid of spam would be better for the consumer because the consumer pays for spam, but we all know that.
That's why I sent them bird poo... (Score:2)
I'm having a hard time imagining how those people react tothat, when they open the envelop to process it, especially when it's printed on the envelop to process it immediately and it is urgent.
But I stop doing this after all this 911 anthrax scare. It was fun though.
Re:Ask us? (Score:2)
States' Rights (Score:2, Insightful)
It's About Freaking Time (Score:2, Redundant)
The breathtaking thing is that the selling of a person's PERSONAL information was, according to standard, opt-out prior to this. As if anybody would choose to receive more ads in their day-to-day life, when asked face-to-face.
I can't wait until this lawsuit is taken out back and beaten to a pulp. If we're lucky the issue will get some media coverage, and public opinion will be strong enough to squish out unwanted, intrusive advertising in more states than one.
Kudos to whoever's writing the laws in Vermont. They're choosing for once to benefit the public interest, rather than the typical bend-over for businesses.
Re:It's About Freaking Time (Score:2)
Just looking at the X10 site (runs Apache on Solaris - not that I was looking how easy it would be to deface) and they've obviously had some complaints 'cos they've put this [x10.com] up.
Re:It's About Freaking Time (Score:2, Funny)
And strangely, according to that X11 ad page [x11.com]:
"These ads are unique in that they appear as a new window. They are 100% safe and 100% legal."
and:
"These ads are commonly used, 100% legal and 100% safe!"
So not only unique, but commonly used as well! Now that really is unique.
Re:It's About Freaking Time (Score:2)
>
>Round out services to customers eh? Guess that includes selling your personal data to whoever wanted it.
To a marketer, "round out" means "to make the customer's privacy look like the guy from goatse.cx".
> Nooooo[...]ooo! I *wanted* beasty porn in my email!!
Well, seeing as how "servicing the customer" seems to mean something like what a bull does on a farm when it services the cows...
Those poor consumers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Those poor consumers (Score:2, Funny)
So how do I get Maryland to deprive me of my "offers" I'll suffer for if I don't get them?
Re:Those poor consumers (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder... (Score:2)
What you people don't understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
phone books? (Score:2, Insightful)
beyond that, your email address is tracked at any site you login to. you have again opted in. you very commonly sign away any other information which a company might way. such as with a product registration (usually optional), or a 'shopping club' at the grocery store.
dont get me wrong. sounds like a good bill to pass. but does it actually *DO* anything?
Re:phone books? (Score:2)
At first it may seem hard to believe companies could sue a state for passing a law protecting individual rights to control personal information, especially when federal law specifically endows states with the power to set their own regulations above and beyond the federal standards. However, this is typical behavior from data resellers. They are not concerned with propriety, they are suing as harrassment. They hope to cause Vermont enough trouble to dissuade other states from passing similar laws. We've seen corporations' willingness to use harrassment suits in countless other situations, it should come as no surprise that something like this could happen.
Vermont's legislators are hoping to throw the large scale data resellers out of their state. They have no interest in the questionable business practices of that industry. It would be nice if other states follow suit-but that may depend on how much of a pain in the ass trade groups can make themselves for Vermont.
Re:phone books? (Score:2)
At least in Washington state both Qwest and Verizon will automatically put you in the phone book when you buy a phone line. You have to pay a monthly fee to get an unlisted number.
That's clearly not opt-in.
Re:phone books? (Score:2)
At least in Washington state both Qwest and Verizon will automatically put you in the phone book when you buy a phone line. You have to pay a monthly fee to get an unlisted number.
Same in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and New Hampshire, at the least.
That's clearly not opt-in.
Sure it is. You opted to choose the lower rate. If Verizon wanted to be crystal-clean, they could just charge everyone the higher rate and give them a "listed number discount", but I doubt they'd have to.
Raising the cost? (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting together a list of people that actually want to get something takes time, and a little effort.
Just like putting an envelope in the mail raises the cost of sending junk mail that way.
Why on earth should the ISPs and users downloading more and more spam ever day have to shoulder the cost of businesses 'targetting' them, trying to sell stuff that's largely not wanted anyway, and only interferes with trying to enjoy one's email quietly.
I have two email accounts unusable now because of spam accumulation over the years from harvesters.
That cost to me is rather great. And I don't make money like corporations.. I think it's about time they shouldered the cost for once, instead of trying to sue because they don't have it as easy as they used to, and they're now actually told they can only sell to people that want to go and get their product. Radical idea that.. Who'd ever have thought that people would actually have the brains to figure out they want to buy something and actually go looking, instead of you jamming their email box every day with cajoles and other annoyances.
Malk
Charitable Benevolent trade groups (Score:2, Insightful)
Ah yes, the industry lobbies once again coming to the rescue of the all important and most loved consumer. If they are out to protect the consumer why are they trade groups? If my company was a member of this trade group that seems dedicated to the cause of protecting the consumer I'd withdraw my membership and ask for my money back!
Right on! (Score:5, Insightful)
This whole opt-out deal sounds totally reasonable and something the people really want. Nice going Vermont!
Re:Right on! (Score:2)
Re:Right on! (Score:2)
Re:Right on! (Score:2)
Some of us also take some pride in living in the only state that doesn't have a McDonalds in its capital city. Or living in the last state to get a Wal Mart.
Sorry, you've lost me. How is it something to take pride in to not have fast food to buy, or a store with very low prices? You take pride in buying slow food, or paying high prices?
Re:Right on! (Score:2)
Fine, if you don't want to eat it, then take pride in yourself that you avoid less healthy food.
But it's just weird to take pride in the fact that your city has decided to restrict the freedom of citizens by not allowing them to eat what they want.
Re:Right on! (Score:2)
It's democracy too to vote it legal to ban Harry Potter books for religious reasons, but that doesn't make it right.
I think a lot of communities need to mind their own damn business.
I'm asking Santa for one of those next year (Score:2)
Recently, my phone company [qwest.com] sent out a mailer describing how to opt out of their planned data sharing scheme. The long and short was that I could dial an 800 number, but that information was so buried in fine-print legalese that I really doubt that many people who otherwise would have opted out actually did. Shenanigans like that are precisely what Vermont is addressing with this law. Let's all think a good thought for Vermont's AG staff on this one.
raise the costs of business, eh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've asked it before [slashdot.org] and I'll ask it again:
why is it that when the corps want to make money off of our data that "information wants to be free" -- but when the public wants to trade/make money off of their data that we need stringent IP protections??
And don't tell me that it's because there is a cottage industry bult around violating our privacy, but no cottage industry built around unauthorized copying. If the legal status of the two kinds of info were reversed, so would the industries attached to them.
I'm waiting for one of these data mining companies to patent "their" info and stick the BSA on anyone who copies it without their permission.
Re:raise the costs of business, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Being able to use software freely, improve it, share it with friends and adapt it IS going to make the world a better place.
horrible misquote (Score:2)
And, yes, IP laws are every bit as environmentally damaging and profitable for a few as hydroelectric dams.
except (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, the issue isn't censorship but ownership and rights of ownership -- if you read my previous post. Most of us slashdotters don't think there should be no IP laws. Just more of a balance. I'm trying to point out the scales are tipped too far.
Re:raise the costs of business, eh? (Score:2)
the double standard is in (Score:3, Insightful)
But my personal data becomes the property of anyone who can get it. Wether by scouring the web, or paying for it, or just spying on me. I have absolutely no control over it. That's the double standard.
Raises costs, hurts consumers... (Score:5, Interesting)
Raises Costs: Sounds like they view easy profits as an entitlement, and expect the state to pass corporate welfare legislation rather than consumer protection legislation.
Hurts Consumers: Mebe we should ask the consumers about this instead? (Why the heck do they suppose the legislature passed the law in the first place?)
I like it (Score:5, Funny)
Think about it, they are paying twice to get 0 results.
I did this for a long time (Score:5, Interesting)
As a bonus, I made little flyers on bright paper: "This complete waste of your time and money was brought to you by [name, address] who would like to be removed from your mailing lists." I'd wrap a flyer around an ounce or so of ripped up paper and stuff that in the envelope.
I viewed it as a lark, just a fun thing to do when I got home every day. But you know, after 6 months of it, my junk mail dropped dramatically. From 3 or 5 pieces a day to just 1 or 2 a week. In short, I'd strongly recommend this to anyone plagued by direct mail.
Australian Govt department has sold my info... (Score:4, Interesting)
I am in charge of our mail server at work (Slackware 8 beast running sendmail, squid, mysql, imap, etc...). Recently I did the following search:
grep unknown
I was surprised to see my an error message regarding an unknown user, which consisted of my first initial, and last name - MIS-SPELT exactly as Telstra had, @mycompany.com.au. So someone obviously got my first & last names from Telstra. They informed my that 'anyone' can get this from the phone book or http://www.whitepages.com.au. Fair enough. But how did they link it to my place of work? Telstra swear that they don't have any record of where I (or anyone else) work. So is this Australia Post, ASIO, or what? I make a point of NOT telling people where I work, as I understand that if this information gets into the wrong hands, people can make life 'difficult' for you.
Any thought on how these 2 (Telstra's records of my name
Re:Australian Govt department has sold my info... (Score:2)
Telstra Big Pond Direct have on-sold my postal address to 3rd party advertisers - for I have received unsolicited advertising mail targetted at people who might be administering a company network, addressed to myself at the organisation name associated with my Big Pond Direct account. This organisation name is not used elsewhere.
I haven't yet confronted Telstra about it. Certainly I never gave them my permission to pass on my personal details to third parties.
Re:Australian Govt department has sold my info... (Score:2)
Re:Australian Govt department has sold my info... (Score:2)
Smug (Score:2, Informative)
As a consumer I like it : no more (supposedly) unsolicited mail.
All european websites have to have the little box that says : please click here IF YOU WANT us to send you mail.
Usually a seperate box also for 'May we sell your address to other parties too'
Re:Smug (Score:2, Funny)
Of course you also have great beer, pr0n on TV, and plenty of cute women. Hmm, how about hosting a deprived American guy like me for a month?
Re:Smug (Score:2)
But here I hit the problem: some countries, there still is no European law governing this type of (ab)use of personal information.
Indeed a system like in the UK or The Netherlands where with only one simple registration in a central and independent database you can stop all unwanted mail and phone calls is nice!
But it does not yet include E-mail and it offers no solution to foreign Spam....
Data Protection Act in UK (Score:3, Informative)
Also we can 'opt out' of junk mail (the physical stuff) and junk phone calls (buy your windows from us etc) by signing up with a couple of lists.
Its great I never get any junk mail, well Ok very rarely, and I never get cold called on the phone to buy stuff.
Saves me time, saves the postman's back
all in all about time you guys in the 'state got it.
Re:Data Protection Act in UK (Score:4, Informative)
mail preference society
phone preference society
Both listed in the from the the phone directories.
Takes at least three months for things to happen once you've filled in the formed.
Re:Data Protection Act in UK (Score:2)
I don't move that often. It takes about 3 months for things to happen, then junk mail starts to die off.
Like you say can take upto a year or more, but it works for me.
Re:Data Protection Act in UK (Score:2)
Only a year? That'll explain why I still get junk mail for people who left 10 years ago...
screwed up (Score:4, Funny)
I'm a bar owner and I've decided the sue the state because not serving beer to juniors makes them unhappy and is hurting my profits.
Catching up with Europe.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Over hear in the land of the unfree we already have these protections. We also have some other consumer protections that might be worth having
1) They can't sell your data unless you let them (two whole tick boxes)
2) The data isn't considered a company asset when the
And as for hurting consumers.... bollocks, totally and utter. Reducing SPAM, being in control of your own information. Hell this _is_ what consumers want.
Go Vermont, full credit to some law makers who aren't just in the pockets of big business.
Forcing companies to sell (Score:5, Insightful)
Can you imagine what life would be like if my local grocery stores had to sell me their products? I'd have to go to the store, know what products I needed, wait in line with my neighbors and then have to actually sign a credit card receipt. What a nightmare!
Fortunately, all the local stores automatically deliver the products I don't realize I need and deduct the cost from my checking account. As if I'd actually want to know how much they're taking! That would totally cut into time I'd much rather spend exploring all the special offers I've been getting in my email.
businesses will opt-out of Vermont (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:businesses will opt-out of Vermont (Score:2)
Re:businesses will opt-out of Vermont (Score:2, Insightful)
Regulation does much more. It also protects us from scammers, toxic waste dumps, bad products, etc.
Company officers (for public companies) are REQUIRED BY LAW to maximize profits for shareholders. If there were no regulations, they would do anything and everything they could to accomplish that goal including things that are bad for you and me, and everyone else.
The problem is that while we were free to opt out of doing business with these companies, we were not free from harassment. Your "doom and gloom" predictions which are used over and over by big business that are doing bad things NEVER PLAY OUT in reality. In fact, it may force companies to be more creative in customer acquision and management which may ultimately increase business.
Look at the lack of regulation in the power industry in California. Hmm. The power companies wrote the deregulation laws and then abused the situation. (Actually, I place only 50% of the blame there, the other 50% goes to the environmental nazi's which protested and sued over all new power plant requests...)
We actually had a privacy bill going here in CA, but the big corporate groups bought our governor and the bill died. The amount of FUD those companies put out was amazing.
Where this will become interesting.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Where this will become interesting.... (Score:2)
Vermont (Score:2)
They want to force themselves on us! (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, it amazes me that the companies will publicly go to court to try to force themselves on people.
I only recently learned that my bank was selling my personal information. When I tried to opt-out, I discovered that they have a difficult procedure to do so. Also, I have three accounts, and they expect me to opt-out of each one separately, even though it is the same information.
I would boycott any company that goes to court against opt-in.
Notice the Sybase ad next to the Computerworld article. Will that sell Sybase products, or damage Sybase by annoying potential customers? The overall reality is that companies are often self-destructive in the way they interact with people.
--
Links to respected news sources show that U.S. government policy contributed to terrorism: What should be the Response to Violence? [hevanet.com]
I can see jury selection now... (Score:2, Funny)
Better late than never... (Score:3, Interesting)
Kjella
Kjella
Consitutional? (Score:2)
Take VT with Permission (Score:3, Funny)
TAKE VERMONT BACK
The folks who supported the decision wouldn't be out done, and started putting signs up which read
TAKE VERMONT FORWARD
I dunno what view this guy was supporting, probably a comment on the whole thing, he had a bumper sticker which read
TAKE VERMONT FROM BEHIND
Maybe the new slogan for this political move could be:
TAKE VERMONT WITH PERMISSION
Who exactly is suing Vermont? (Score:2, Interesting)
If I read it correctly, the businesses affected are those regulated by Vermont's Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration, and there are five "industry trade groups" fighting it.
The American Council of Life Insurers [acli.com] was identified as one of the groups. Unfortunately, the page on their site that lists the member companies isn't working (may be slashdotted).
The article also quotes a spokesman from Citigroup, Inc. [citigroup.com], which consists of Citibank, Travelers, Smith Barney, Primerica, Citigroup Private Bank, Diners Club International, Banamex, Citi Insurance, Citi Financial, Citi Capital, Citigroup Corporate & Investment Bank, Citiroup Asset Management and Citi Mortgage.
Anybody know who the rest are?
A possible Solution (Score:2)
Increase costs? (Score:2)
Internet users all over the world should file a class action suit against The DMA, all email marketers, spammers and everyone else who treats online privacy as an extension of their marketing departments.
Minnesota is talking similarly... (Score:2)
But I recently heard that some of our reps are looking at passing a similar law at the state level.
This was the only thing I could find discussing it at this time...
http://www.startribune.com/stories/535/1201637.
I heard some of the comments made with regards to the GLB act. They lobbied to have it worded the way it was, specifically to make it harder for the consumer to opt-out of data sharing. The more difficult it was, the less likely consumers would act.
So I say do the same with opt-in. The more difficult it is, the less likely it is that I'll get 4 phone calls on Saturday morning asking to sell me crap.
This may actually help them. (Score:2)
I think that, once people are done basking in the freedom of having little to no junk mail, some people may begin to opt in to one or two things here and there. And then the people who send out these ads can be confident that the recipients actually want it.
Only 2-3% opted out? (Score:2)
I can understand that to an extent. I almost threw out some of those "privacy notices" and I was looking for them! The companies sure didn't want to draw any attention to the possibility of opting out. I had to do phone calls, and postal mail, and sometimes I had to do it once for each account with the same company, and all in all it was a major hassle.
But still, I would have thought that more like 10% would have opted out. Maybe they were too busy sorting through junk mail and spam...
Hurts the consumers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just like Microsoft had the best of Joe and Jane Doe inmind when it used monopolistic bullying to get their OS installed to every computer. Or how the oil companies (with president Bush as a spokes person)have the best of the consumers in mind when they dumped the Kioto agreement.
How nice..
Not just banks.... (Score:2)
So much for the "Public Interest".
A good start... (Score:4, Interesting)
Canada has passed a privacy law (applies to Federal Agencies now, will apply to everyone by (I think) end of 2002).
I am more familiar with the gist of Canada's law, which goes:
Must tell you what they are going to do with the information when they ask for it;
Must get explicit permission from you to do anything other than what they said the first time;
Automatically applies to any information given to a 3rd party or info which crosses a provincial or federal boundary.
A single consumer complaint automatically triggers an investigation;
It is backed by some pretty stiff penalties; huge fines and provisions to jail company directors.
It is a crime to even ASK for a Social Insurance Number (ie Social Security #) unless authorized by legislation (Bank, Gov't Agency, Employer). You can refuse-I know one person who has never given the number out, even on Credit Card Applications, and yes, he gets his cards.
I don't know about Maine, but recently the EU granted Canada's law to be sufficently protective of consumer's rights that Canada & Canadian Firms are "trusted" entities with regard to European Privacy Laws.
RE: A Good Start... (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.privcom.gc.ca/faq/faq_01_e.asp#006
After reading it, it seems Private Companies will have to comply in 2004 (not 2002 as I guessed earlier).
Copyrighting my identity (Score:2, Interesting)
Thus, if anybody uses it without my explicit permission in any context I get to sue them using copyright laws.
And if they try to hack my identity I can use the DCMA on them..
Take that...
Hilarious! (Score:3, Funny)
Ooooo, I bet they're trembling in their boots in Vermont! Who wants to miss outon all those special offers?
These people (marketers) need to get out more. They think threatening NOT to send stuff to people is... well.. a threat (giggle, chortle, snort!
This has nothing to do with the web (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, not directly at least. This isn't mandating opt-in for spammers or anything like that. They're talking about sharing personal information. While this may include email addresses, it's MUCH more than that - addresses, buying habits, banking practices, assets, etc. Companies do this all the time, and set "opt-out" policies that generously allow you to tell them to quit sharing whenever you become aware of it, but by then the damage is usually done.
I'm a bit dubious of this case, because it wasn't legislated, a beaureacrat took it upon himself to re-interpret an existing law to say this, so the suit may well have a good point in this particular case. However, it's a great idea, a lot of states have legislation like that pending, and I am urging everyone to do something about this. See if your state has a bill like this pending - if it does, write your representatives and tell them you support it. If not, write them and encourage them to introduce one.
Re:This has nothing to do with the web (Score:2)
This is another thing to consider. Do you know how they get your information regarding shopping practices and preferences? Well, they start with the Food Lion MVP card / Giant Bonus card / Kroger Plus card / Ukrops Valued Customer card.
Seriously, they have analysis done on what you buy and how much you spend that more or less accurately tells them what demagraphic you're in.
~z
Re:Increasing the worth of VT Grocery stores (Score:2)
We have a grocery chain where I used to live that did the exact same thing. I boycotted them for it, and made a point to explain to the management why. Probably didn't do any good, but if enough people did...
Think about it, this is really something you should be angry about. That lady in front of you didn't just save $4.63 out of thin air - YOU subsidised her "savings" as a penalty for refusing to be a good sheepling. Why would you even do business with a company that treated you like that? If you're going to pay extra anyway, why not pay extra to another store?
Re:funny... (Score:2)
Well, as far as the loaded "don't care" idea, I'm not going to comment. But what you're referring to is Libertarianism, not liberalism / leftism. Liberals generally want the government to interfere with companies; Libertarians don't, as they want the government to have the smallest role possible.
Re:funny... (Score:2)
Re:Appropriate given Vermont signage laws (Score:2)
I don't have any ideas on how to, but maybe it could involve a giant bubble over the state, and a few million heaters...
Here in NYC we don't have a major billboard problem, but they do exist, and they are annoying. Worst one I've seen is when you're driving into Manhattan from Queens, and a giant billboard says "Welcome to the City of Heroes". Thank you, Perry Ellis. Not only are you using a national tragedy to try and hawk your label, but you're implying that Brooklyn and Queens aren't part of the city; though of course, that's where most of the rescue workers live. Wow, that's off-topic. But I have to vent somewhere.
Re:Won't matter one bit... (Score:2)
It's not just the UK. The Data Protection Act is merely the UKs implementation of the EU Privacy Guidelines. You will find similar laws in all member states.
Mart