FTC Seeks Battle With Toysmart 135
wrenling writes: "Toysmart promised to never share their customer's data. They lied. They are seeking to sell their customer databases. The FTC voted today to begin a court battle with Toysmart to block them from doing so. CNN has more details in a CNNfn article."
thats illegal (Score:1)
Hooray for the government (Score:1)
I wonder what the libertarian response would have been, probably to never again patronize an out of business retailer?
Quick question... (Score:3)
Your info (Score:2)
Three Cheers for the FTC (Score:2)
toysmart and others (Score:3)
For the attentive (like me) check news.com from Saturday, I believe, and see which OTHER companies are currently auctioning off customer databases. You may have done business with them at some point.
Excercise your rights or loose them.
How Binding? (Score:3)
Just how binding was Toysmart's promise? Was it a "Above subject to change without notice" or was there an explicit contract between user and Toysmart?
In the former case I doubt that anything will happen, but it will be very exciting if somebody goes down because of this.
--
Eric is chisled like a Greek Godess
It goes with the territory (Score:2)
Re:toysmart and others (Score:2)
Hmm (Score:1)
I guess it may just be the decline of the world into a corp controlled world where they do what they want when they like but at least the FTC is poping in and trying to stop it.
I really don't think they should be doing this to the customers. I mean what if they had a sudden infusion of capital and got back on their feet? How many people would do business with them NOW?
Not many I beleive. Where would you rather go a place that sells the information you give them privatly or someone who locks it in a vault and buries it in 10 feet of concrete? Well maybe that was a bad setup but my point is, that maybe they should think a little bit more on this and with any luck they may decide not to sell it. I doubt that they will but hey we can hope.
Thats about all I got to say on this....lets hope something is done...I'd hate to see this become a trend.
Shame on you Toysmart...I would have expected better from a toy company.
-Sarkdas (This is commander Sarkdas, Over and out!)
See? (Score:1)
Another quick question... (Score:1)
Did Toysmart have a specific privacy agreement of which they would now be in violation, like others mentioned on /. [slashdot.org]? It would be interesting to see how this compares to the other failed dot-coms that are selling (or trying to sell) personal info. Is the FTC investigating and considering pursuing others, and this is just the first (semi) high-profile case? Or is there something different about Toysmart that makes them a target?
Disney? (Score:1)
a rock and a hard place (Score:3)
I am a libertarian - so don't accuse me of libertarian bashing, because that's not what this is about. And when I say "libertarian," think "political party", not "crypto-anarchist". Do that for the sake of this article, whatever you really believe.
There, now that is out of the way.
So, as a libertarian, I have a problem here.. An inner conflict, if you will. One one hand, I believe (like a good libertarian should) that there should be less government. That the government should keep its hands out of just about everything. But on the otherhand, without the government, toysmart can violate my rights. Microsoft can crush my company. And I cannot stop them.
Of course, we can talk about standing up for your beliefs, and organizing this and that, etc. etc., but right now, toysmart is all set to disclose private information trusted to them - after they said they wouldn't.. and it looks like the FTC is the only thing with enough force to stop them.
So, knowing there are a lot more involved libertarians out there, what is the answer in cases like these - where the government stands between us and toysmart, or microsoft...
What is a libertarian supposed to think about it?
wish
---
Is it a contract? (Score:2)
While IANAL, I do know that in Massachusetts there are provisions to make even oral contracts binding. Oral contracts can be difficult to prove, but can be used as a legal agreement. This is a Massachusetts based company, but it is unclear whether this type of behavior would be handled under state law. If so toysmart's efforts have a really good chance of failing. Otherwise, I can give no opinion.
While there is a question of law at hand, I am more concerned with the question of corporate ethics in web-land, especially when it comes to consumer privacy. When someone gives information to a site and specifically request that the information be kept secret, there is a good faith agreement that in exchange for the business they conduct, their wishes will be adhered to. In this case, there is no more business to be conducted. What happens to good faith when a web company goes belly-up? This could set a veeeery interesting precedent.
Way to go FTC!!! (Score:1)
It just does my heart good see one of my US Government Agencies actually doing something right for its citizens instead bowing to the desires of corporations
I am already drafting my letter of support to send to the FTC [ftc.gov]. All slashdoters may also do so (though I am sure they really only care about those who are US citizens) by sending a letter to:
Federal Trade Commission
CRC-240
Washington, D.C. 20580
Re:How Binding? (Score:2)
Even if there is no specific contract,if the company asked for the information, and was publicly stating that it would never be sold to anyone else, that is all that is needed.
The consumer believes it, which is what matters.
Re:How Binding? (Score:1)
<IANAL>
I don't know if you could really hold up a "Above subject to change without notice" clause in court for comething like this. Those clauses are usually only for pricing and I know in alot of cases that doesn't even work. I don't think you can do that with something like a privacy policy.
</IANAL>
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
Shame on you Toysmart...I would have expected better from a toy company.
Why on earth would you have expected better? A company is still a company (or a section of a corporate megalith, depending), regardless of whether they sell toys or guns. After all, eToys [etoys.com] certainly qualifies as a toy company, and we know what we think of them...
Re:Quick question... (Score:2)
>action lawsuit against Toysmart?
Sure you could, but remember this is part of their *bankruptcy* proceedings. They were trying to do it because they have no money!
Only thing a class action suit would do would make more money for some lawyers.
You can't get blood from a stone.
Customers Are Commodities. (Score:1)
The last time they did this in the United States of America, it was called slavery and eventually it was outlawed; it seems that it was seen as illegal to treat people as property.
Now, people are being treated as property again, virtually if not actually. A company can cover itself by saying, "We are only selling information, not the person!" but the truth of the matter is that in our day and age, information about a person can be a valuable asset in putting that person's resources at your disposal.
Forget about blackmail--that's a naive idea. The real money lies in being able to analyze people according to their purchasing and surfing patterns, and tailoring ads to individuals that are nearly irresistable.
For more than fifty years, citizens of the United States of America have been conditioned to believe that they must buy next year's model, that they must keep up with the Joneses, that every penny that isn't being spent on keeping them alive or sheltered must be spent on buying things that mysteriously fail to increase our quality of life. We are being taught to buy junk, and then we are forced to work longer hours so we can buy more junk.
It is time to stop this nonsense. It is time to say, "No more!" Are you willing to trade your freedom for a few cheap trinkets?
Re:Hooray for the government (Score:3)
This is definately a case of a company breaking an agreement, which warrents civil action at the least, and possibly criminal liability.
IANAL, IAAl (I am not a lawyer, I am a libertarian).
Re:How Binding? (Score:4)
So glad to hear some sane news coming from out of America for a change.
the AC
More to come! (Score:1)
After viewing the Fucked Company [fuckedcompany.com] website, it looks like a lot of companies will trying to do the same as Toysmart. Personal Information in the gold of the internet. Since most business plans for Internet Companies look like they were written by four-year-olds high on sugar about the only thing left after they die are the records of the fools that bought from them.
A good example of Personal Information mining are AOL owned web sites. Just take a peak at any AOL owned website and notice how many cookies are sent from AOL on a single page load (at least four) from their ads server. Why do they need 4 cookies to track one user? Plus every cookie is unique so if you say no to the cookie, it pops up again and again wanting to tag your browser. I have almost given up using their web sites because I get tired of saying no to their cookies.
It not an asset, it's a liability! (Score:3)
This is the way to stem and break the trade in customer data.
Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:3)
Enforcing contract law is a vital role of the government. Without it, there's no recourse when one doesn't get what one pays for (in this case, I consider Toysmart's privacy policy to be a part of the terms of sale).
-Isaac
"...let slip the dolls of war." (Score:4)
Let's see...
The Federal Trade Commission has a cadre of crack investigators backed up by masses of professional bureaucrats.
Toysmart has warehouses full of Sooper Soakers and a legion of G.I. Joes with Kung Fu Grip[tm].
My money's on Toysmart.
k.
--
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people
are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Selling DB = Selling Company (Score:1)
Furthermore, it seems entirely possible that whoever purchases the piece with the database prize piece contained therein will be bound by the same agreement Toysmart made to all it collected data from.
Re:How Binding? (Score:2)
This comes from the Toysmart privacy page:
Personal information voluntarily submitted by visitors to our site, such as name, address, billing information and shopping preferences, is never shared with a third party. All information obtained by toysmart.com is used only to personalize your experience online.
Now from what it appears -- the Toysmart company is going out of business and needs a buyer. According to the privacy policy, they will not sell their data to a THIRD party. However, if they sell the company (data and all), then is the new company owner a third party anmyore? I don't think so (but IANAL). In my view, they are safe as long as they use the data as hey state and sell the data along with the company to the new owners.
You bankrupted us, now suffer the consequences. (Score:5)
Look at what you acomplished, you moron! We are out of business now, thanks to you! Why haven't you come back? Why haven't you told your wife, your husband, your neighbours, your friends to come and buy from us? Why?
Know what, we will get even with you. Yes, just wait and see. We have you by the hand. We know where you live, we know your credicard number, we know your phone number.
We will go out and sell all this to highest bidder. No, I have a better idea yet. We will sell it to MEANEST bidder.
Your phone number will go to the worst direct marketeers in the country! Your address, to every church in your area. Your children's names will go directly to alt.sex.pedophilia.children.offer.themselves. Your wife's name we have already sent to a scort's online site. And your boss will be hearing about that sex toys you bought.
You made us suffer. Now taste our revenge. Next time you will thinking twice before failing to help an honest and good online store to trive.
Re:Quick question... (Score:1)
What damages would arise from this? More spam? You may be right, but I'm assuming that in order to sue for damages, damages have to occur. You would probably have better luck going through the breech of contract route.
Being with you, it's just one epiphany after another
Re:Hmm (Score:1)
-Sarkdas (I want the GI Joe with real combat flamethrower!)
Selling the Data, or the business? (Score:2)
The former seems to be a bad idea; as stated previously, even if the FTC didn't step up to the plate, they'd be facing a pretty lengthy civil fight (probably class action) against everybody who registered with them.
The latter seems much more reasonable, and is what appears to be actually happening. This is certainly acceptable, I'd think. A corporation is an entity unto itself, and would retain ownership of the database regardless of who was pulling the strings behind the scene.
But, if the latter is really going on, why was it reported in such a provocative way (i.e., "This company is going to sell your information even though it promised not to!") instead of a more direct manner ("This company is going to change hands."). Seems like rabble rousing to me.
But, what do I know?
Re:How Binding? (Score:2)
Our promise At toysmart.com, we take great pride in our relationships with our customers and pledge to maintain your privacy while visiting our site. Personal information voluntarily submitted by visitors to our site, such as name, address, billing information and shopping preferences, is never shared with a third party. All information obtained by toysmart.com is used only to personalize your experience online. This information is received via the following areas of our site: My toysmart and the Gift Center. When you place additional orders, our site will update your order history, which you can view in My toysmart. If you sign up for the gift registry, information you submit will be added to your personal profile. Other than these two instances, the information that you provide us is not supplemented in any way.
This is a sad world (Score:2)
All the people who use major online companies for internet access are pretty used to spam from thier provider selling thier email address. They seem to accept this as normal and something that they deal with and think nothing of it. Look at all the "click to win" type sites. Where is all the money comming from to pay the winners? Why by the selling of the full info that you have to provide them to participate.
I find it depressing that the internet has formed a new form of revenue in the selling of personall information to be abused by marketing people. Telemarketers, spamers, ect. And the very sad thing is this is being done by the companies you are purchasing items from. It isn't enough you are buying from them, they also sell your info to make even more money.
Just thinking about all the uncarring people who will continue to use any company regardless of thier actions makes me sick.
Hint: If you are logged on to AOL and reading this you might fall into the catagory I mentiond
Re:Your info (Score:4)
I'm all about that, but this is getting impossible in this increasingly connected world. I was off the junkmail...er...DMA...lists for nearly a year until I moved. I was assured - several times, mind you - by US Postal Service staff that my new address would not be bought or sold.
Just think of all the people who have your info already: creditors (revolving credit), other creditors such as the phone company, power company, cellular service provider, cable company, magazine producers, banks, your ISP, InterNIC - the list is so long I can't name them all.
You have to tell every one of these companies that you don't want them to sell or rent your name. Companies are getting around that, however. They still share your information - but this time it's with "business partners." Look - don't fucking give my information to anyone without explicitly asking me first.
And even if you do tell everyone to not sell your info, you'll probably still get junkmail and telemarketing calls - especially if you have a legitimate address in your InterNIC record. There are some jerks who poll InterNIC WHOIS records for addresses to add to junkmail lists. Also if you try to sell a car in a newspaper you'll get calls from people all over the country who use computers to poll online classifieds and -- illegally, mind you (see Junkbusters regarding the TCPA) -- use automated systems to call any phone numbers listed. I know - I got over 10 calls -- ALL automated -- from businesses trying to get me to pay them 40 bucks to have my vehicle ad blasted all over creation.
I'm sure it's no wonder to you that I'm all about the FTC going after these pricks.
BS (Score:1)
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
click-through and shrinkwrap licenses (Score:5)
From a common sense standpoint, the FTC has to win this battle. If they don't, this would not only make privacy policies essentially unenforceable, but other types of non-signature contracts as well.
If a company is able to arbitrarily go against their posted privacy policy, then consumers should be able to do the same in reverse for any other similar type of contract. IE, I should be able to click on one of Microsoft's "I Agree" buttons on one of their click-through licenses, and then feel free to go against it at a whim. They are both equally valid contracts, requiring exactly the same effort to "agree" to them (clicking on a little button on a webpage), and both employing the same tactic for proof of identity (they take your word for it).
It would be in any software company's best interests to fight on the FTC's side on this one.
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
It's not so hard. Stop thinking that the government is evil. The government does have its uses, and one good use of this to protect and defend the public good. The ideal government is one that expresses the common will of the people.
Of course, the actuality and how it departs from the ideal should be examined with a keen eye.
teh gov (Score:1)
At least, in theory :]
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
I would think whatever stance libertarians have on that issue should be about the same. Because nowadays corperations are fairly independent of any one nation. Think of them almost each as a small nation trading with our nation. And ask yourself what our foreign policy should be for involvment which such nations that abuse thier power they gain through such trading????
Re:Three Cheers for the FTC (Score:1)
As a (I'm assuming) preferred stock-holder, I believe Disney would also be liable for a portion of the damages if Toysmart couldn't afford to pay.
Re:It goes with the territory (Score:1)
To enter this site you have to be more than 18 years old. Click here to enter.
Welcome to toysmart.com. Here you can buy an astounding collection of sexual toys, anything your heart (and your lust) desires!
A domain is just a name... It's like letting some company keep billing you, even though they shut down and some other company started a totally different service but with the same name. Pointless and stupid, for your part.
Re:Quick question... (Score:1)
Think whatever you please... (kinda OT) (Score:4)
>about it?
You aren't *supposed* to think anything about it.
Go ahead... think any damn thing you please. No one'll burn you at the stake. Form an opinion for yourself, and don't wait for the libertarian gurus to form one for you. Just because you belong to a particular political party/religion/group does NOT mean you MUST adjust your entire thought processes to fit it's doctrine.
OTOH, some of those same entities *DO* beleive that everyone MUST think alike. And will go to great lengths to silence/excommunicate their critics. Which is why I will never support groups like the republican or democrat parties, the christian church, peta, cult of scientology, micro$oft, etc.
But, the last I checked, there was nothing in the libertarian philosophy that said you MUST accept, beleive in, and think in line with, EVERY aspect of the philosophy.
john
Resistance is NOT futile!!!
Haiku:
I am not a drone.
Remove the collective if
NPR had this too (Score:4)
One of the possibilities identified is that a judge might allow the sale of the very valuable data (this sort of thing goes for 15 bucks a name,) to a company that agrees to uphold the same garauntee.
The issues are complicated here, as the shareholders want some return of their investment, and this is one of the most valuable assets the company has.
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:1)
How I see it, there is an overwhelming mass of unthinking consumers (where unthinking refers to their major choices of whom they buy from, and also that most people have some areas they don't think about). Views on things are injected by whomever catches their attention. In this scenario, those of the consumers who would play a part in the "the customer knows best" are in a significant minority, so their input is swamped by the unthinking majority. For these issues, government control comes in. It seems only necessary because of this unthinking majority. If a company sold private data and consumers were mostly thinking about whom they give their business to, and were united, they would say "I don't think so" and the company would go out of business. Future companies would think twice before doing this. But because most consumers don't really care about their information being sold, they'll support the company either way "hey, if it makes the products cheaper, it's cool man - you win, I win". I suppose one who thoght about this may not care about their personal data being sold. I wonder if they are considering that this is used to target advertising meant to sway the unthinking consumers, in the end to manipulate as usual.
Government is roughly in a loop with the unthinking masses. It's like you squeezed out the thinking and bottled up in government. You can't eliminate just one. You can't fill the hole in the ground without the pile of dirt you dug up. I see government/rigid social order as a "support group", a crutch while humanity gets its act together and figures out how to use its mind. Until then, I see government as a semi-essential element of the transition.
Re:It not an asset, it's a liability! (Score:2)
I'm assuming you just pulled that number ($50) out of your head, and I'm not trying to call you on it, here, but how would we put a price on this?
To my next-door neighbor, his personal information might not be worth anything, maybe he LIKES getting tons of junk mail, and has fun forwarding spam to his 'buddy list.' Perhaps to my other neighbor, personal information would be invaluable.
I know that we've put a price on many invaluable commodities already, but where would we even start on this?
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
Should we do all this out of some mad hatred for authority? No.
The reason we want the government to scale back from so much is because it should stay on-task with the few things it should be doing:
1. Protect our lives from violence
2. Protect our rights
3. Promote the general welfare (some libertarians forget this one)
4. Uphold contracts
5. Enforce the law
I don't know all of the facts of the Toysmart case, but it looks like a pretty clear case of breach of contract. See item 4 on my list.
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:2)
Re:Another quick question... (Score:5)
Our promise
At toysmart.com, we take great pride in our relationships with our customers and pledge to maintain your privacy while visiting our site. Personal information voluntarily submitted by visitors to our site, such as name, address, billing information and shopping preferences, is never shared with a third party. All information obtained by toysmart.com is used only to personalize your experience online. This information is received via the following areas of our site: My toysmart and the Gift Center. When you place additional orders, our site will update your order history, which you can view in My toysmart. If you sign up for the gift registry, information you submit will be added to your personal profile. Other than these two instances, the information that you provide us is not supplemented in any way.
You misheard (Score:2)
Re:It goes with the territory (Score:1)
I think the key here is the provided that it stays with the web site. I did not get the impression that Toysmart itself was being sold, but rather that it was trying to sell the information independently. Clearly this is not the same thing.
Still, it's an interesting concept. Food for thought.
it's like Xoom.com (Score:2)
Toysmart may have pledged to never sell your personal details but toysmarts creditors probably aren't bound by the agreement that you had with the website.
Unlike xoom.com, toysmart have little to loose. If they sell your details then the creditors will be happier and if they dont then it's no big deal really.
It's a pretty sad situation
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:5)
This is a straw man. Contract enforcement is one of the few government functions generally accepted as proper by libertarians. Toysmart promised not to sell their data -- if they try to do it anyway, nail 'em.
/.
For once, the government on the side of privacy (Score:1)
It's incredible to see a government agency siding against big business, and with the private citizen here. It makes me wonder if maybe there is some small amount of accountability left in the US, rather than corporations being allowed to do whatever they please, whenever they please.
Or it could just be a token gesture, done to lull the masses into complacency. It's very easy for people to not look closely at what's going on around them, as long as thing can be perceived as being ok.
Cynical? Me?
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:3)
A libertarian belives that individual liberty is paramount to the existance of a free state, and that government must be established to protect the rights of the individual. That includes enforcing contracts. I defy you to find one leader within the LP, or one prominent libertarian writer who thinks contracts should not be upheld.
An anarchist believes in the lack of controlling authority, where each looks after his or her own rights.
You may want to re-read your old high school civics books. Start with Burke, Adam Smith, and Voltaire.
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:1)
Concepts like "less government" are deliberately vague so that politicians can get away with saying it and doing the opposite. Witness the '80s Republican stance of "less government" while raising the national debt and trippling the size of the US government. It's nothing but cheap useless political rhetoric.
What the libertarian philosophy believes is very specific. A libertarian (philosophy, not party -- i'm not sure how the party stacks up with the philosophy) is that the government is needed, but it's only needed for a couple of narrow specific purposes... anything that goes beyond those purposes is bad.
Two of those standard accepted purposes:
- Defending the country from attack from foreign powers. That justifies an army, but not necessarily a large standing army. The size and nature are up for debate, but when the army is used for anything OTHER than defending from attack from foreign powers it oversteps the bounds.
- Mediating disputes between citizens, and assisting in enforcing contracts.
So... the FTC in THIS case is very much in line with libertarian philosophy.
Libertarianism isn't about anarchy -- it's about the rights of the individual.
Holy Cow (Score:1)
Re:thats illegal (Score:1)
Re:Another quick question... (Score:1)
---
chahast at pangaea foo dhs foo org
s/foo/dot
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:1)
Re:Think whatever you please... (kinda OT) (Score:1)
"IANAL! IANAL!" I *know* you're not a lawyer, k? (Score:1)
This is totally OT, but there's no "general /. bitch area" that I know about..
Can we PLEASE make it an unspoken rule that by default posters are NOT lawyers. I swear every fifth post has "IANAL, but..." It's driving me nutso! Whenever lawyers DO pop their heads up and post, they clearly indicate that they are lawyers, this isn't legal advice, etc., etc. If you don't do this then you ain't an attorney and we just assume as much.
Personally, I think all the sexually repressed geeks around here are subconsciously making up for it by throwing ANAL into as many posts as they can realisitically get away with. Freud would chuckle, that's for sure.
- Rev.Why is this insightful? (Score:1)
Liability is just an accounting term. That makes as much sense as getting the Army to classify military weapons as liabilities so that it wouldn't fall into the wrong hands.
I'm sure that Toysmart has some debits owing. These are liablilities and yet they are not going to go out and destroy them.
Crappy moderating.
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:1)
I heard it once the libertarian role of government defined: to protect you for the enemies from outside (i.e., protection by the military against invasions) and the enimies within (i.e., protection from crime, IOW the judicial system). This is clearly a case to be run in the judicial system.
I see no conflict with this case and libertarianism here.
Re:Your info (Score:4)
If they break a straightforward promise like that, what other things are they going to be dishonest about?
Too bad the corporate structure prevents executives, managers (AND SHAREHOLDERS) from doing a little jailtime for violating the law.
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
I know it is easy to get worked up about the evils of the "corporatists" after reading a few Katz articles, but if the Ma Bell break-up and the expected fate of Microsoft tell us anything, it is that we are still a nation of laws (when the system works).
honesty is not a corporate value (Score:1)
1.)corporations represent stockholders who as a rule value money more than principles.
2.)Honesty only has value if it can generate goodwill or some percieved value.
3.)Take away the incentive to remain honest and the corps revert to there scummy do-anything-for-a-buck selfs.
4.)#3 especially applies to a corp that enters reorganization. A corporate mission statement looses much meaning when all your assets are getting repo'd.
But honestly, I know in principle this sucks, but, I can't help but thinking. Who cares? So they tracked all of my toy purchasing habits for the last 12 months. They have illegally sold my lego purchasing fetish information to everyone with a buck who wants to purchase it.
I just am not swept up with outrage here. Sorry!
--Pete
he felt himself being split into two haves, one part hot, one cold, one part hard, one soft, one part trembling, and one part not trembling, each half grinding against the other. -- ray bradbury
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:2)
That may be the policy of the Libertarian Party(TM), but I was responding to the original poster who's self-described "libertarian" beliefs presented him with a moral quandry.
I won't take you up on your challenge (re: LB leadership) because I believe you. I was using a rhetorical device to illustrate to the original poster that the notion that a government should uphold contract law is not necessarily incompatible with libertarian ideals.
FWIW, I agree with some (but not all) libertarian notions, and am a member of no political party.
-Isaac
The libertarian response. (Score:1)
So, knowing there are a lot more involved libertarians out there, what is the answer in cases like these - where the government stands between us and toysmart
Adam Smith gives three legitimate purposes of government. I'm paraphrasing here, so please forgive me any lapses.
1. To protect the people from invasion by foreign armies.
2. To protect the people from each other, or, failing that, to administer a system of justice.
3. To undertake those projects which benefit the whole people, but which will not profit any lesser group to undertake.
Milton Friedman adds a fourth, and a precautionary warning.
4. To care for those who are unable to care for themselves.
The caution is: all of these should be interpreted narrowly.
L. Opposition
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:1)
Well, that's the problem with any strict political position. They do not adapt well. I'm Canadian, more exactly, I'm from Quebec. I believe that governmental intervention is very important. If there is little governmental intervention, then you have little democracy. Let me explain, democracy is the power given to the people through elections. And this power is in the government, if you have less government, then you have less democracy and it gets closer to what Katz calls "the corporate republic". Because businesses are logical and they want more profit, and they know that monopolies and dirty tricks brings them more profits. If their was no government to protect the average citizen, you would end up with something like the British 19th century, where most people lived in terrible conditions and very few aristocrats getting all the money and benifits.
Many americans believe that they have little governmental intervention in their country. While this may seem true, I must first remind you that the US Army spends three times more money than the largest business.
Another time when there was little governmental intervention and regulation was the 1920's. The stock market went all the way up.. until 1929 when it fell down and only strong intervention from the federal gov (New Deal... then the war) managed to get the US out of the crisis. Since then, the Feds have been much more active in the stock market, with important regulations and intervention. And there has been no Depression of the same size. The intervention of the government has the effect of limiting the amplitude of the economic waves. So they dont go as low, but also they dont grow as fast.
Libertarianism and the reduction of governemental intervention can only lead to dictature or "the corporate republic".
Re:sure should be (Score:1)
Re:Preventable? (Score:2)
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:2)
Thank you! It's about time somebody cleared this up. Libertarians are not anarchists. They believe in a minimal government, not no government. I think that something like enforcing contracts is definately a useful role of the government.
Now, personally I'm not a libertarian. I'm a registered independent, largely because I try not to confine myself to any specific philosophy or dogma and I believe in always trying to determine what the right solution for the problem at hand is. Still, I find I agree with a lot of the libertarian philosophy and I scored about 90% on their "Are you a libertarian?" test thinging, not that it's a scientifically accurate test or anything. Anyway, I think I had a point at some time, but I forgot what it is.
Anyway, the question which started this thread really bugs me. First of all, I don't think there is a conflict between libertarian ideals and enforcing contracts, but that's besides the point. If the original poster does feel there is such a conflict, then why is he a libertarian? Why subscribe to a party philosohpy you don't agree with? 'Cause /. told you to?
This get's into why I'm not a libertarian, despite the fact that I agree with 90% of what they say. I don't like dogma, I don't like canned solutions. Why can't people just think for themselves instead of being confined to a few predetermined options? There is no one magic solution for anything, let alone complex world issues. Take some time to actually evaluate different possibilities instead of just saying, "I'm a libertarian and this conflicts with libertarian ideals so I don't like it"!
Anyway, that's enough incoherent ranting for one day.
Of course, the notion of never letting yourself be influenced by dogma is, in of itself, a dogma.
Re:Selling the Data, or the business? (Score:2)
Either way, using that data for unethical purposes is expressly prohibited by United States law.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1033 [cornell.edu] says: Whoever, by threats or force or by any threatening letter or communication, corruptly influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors corruptly to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any proceeding involving the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce is pending before any insurance regulatory official or agency or any agent or examiner appointed by such official or agency to examine the affairs of a person engaged in the business of insurance whose activities affect interstate commerce, shall be fined as provided in this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.
I hardly consider this rabble rousing when our Constitutional rights are at stake. The changing of hands will result in a flurry of red tape at the end of which we can rest assured that the new owners of Toysmart will use their customer database for the corrupt purpose of selling this very personal information to telemarketers. However, customers can take recompense for damages incurred by Toysmart's policies.
From U.S. Code, Title 15 (Trade and Commerce), Chapter 8, Section 298 [cornell.edu]: Suits by competitors, customers, or subsequent purchasers for injunctive relief; damages and costs Any competitor, customer, or competitor of a customer of any person in violation of section 294, 295, 296, or 297 of this title, or any subsequent purchaser of an article of merchandise which has been the subject of a violation of section 294, 295, 296, or 297 of this title, shall be entitled to injunctive relief restraining further violation of sections 294 to 300 of this title and may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover damages and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.
Re:Think whatever you please... (kinda OT) (Score:4)
It just means he wants help sorting out what he sees as a vexing dilema, and to admit the need for such advice showed far more fortitude than your post, which reminded me of the mob in "Monty Python and the Life of Brian", who all shouted back "Yes! We are all individuals! Yes! We must all learn to think for ourselves!" in perfect unison.
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:2)
Also, it sounded like he was just asking an honest question, where as many who responded to him were trying to characterize all libertarians as raving nutbags in the Michigan Millitia or something. It was their response that raised my hackles, not the original question.
All Things Considered story about this (Score:2)
Re:How Binding? (Score:2)
Re:Everyone's a libertarian... (Score:2)
Quantifying the threat (Score:2)
As an example, I'm pretty sure that Amazon.com knows the following about me:
- My name, billing address, and shipping address(es) I've used. That's pretty obvious.
- My E-mail address.
- My credit card number. Obviously, I want to protect this. However, even though Amazon knows my credit card number, I'm reasonably sure they're not going to submit bogus charges against it. If that ever happened, I'd call my credit card company.
- My ordering history. Yeah, this is personal, but it's not like they can use this against me. Of course, if I ordered Slashdot Trolling for Dummies, I might think differently. (Besides, their history doesn't reflect the fact that I bought some books as gifts, so they seem to think I'm interested in the book Measured Drawings of Eighteenth-Century American Furniture.)
- They could have a list of books and other items I browsed, but never ordered. That doesn't necessarily reflect my interests, though, as I'm reasonably sure I won't be ordering Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.
So, does Amazon.com know anything about me that I haven't told them? Or any other online retailer, for that matter? I can see that they could use my ordering history to get an idea of what my interests are, but that doesn't mean that they'll sucker me into buying every single book about Linux.If Amazon, or any other online retailer I've done business with, ever goes bankrupt and resells my customer information, I'm not entirely sure what the threat is. Sure, it's personal information and I'd really rather not have it resold, but I'd like to at least know how much of a threat this is.
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
The Republicans did not control the budget in the 80's. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for most of the Reagan/Bush era, and only congress has the power to write spending proposals into law.
This is not to say that Reagan did not fail to live up to his rhetoric. The '86 budget deal was all his idea, and it was a major step away from small government.
My point is that you should look to the Congress if you want somebody to blame for the balooning budgets of the 80's. For every MX missile Reagan and the Pentagon wanted, Ted Kennedy appended 20 Minuteman missiles that were built in his state; and the budgets for Health and Human Servies, the Department of Education, and several other social-program oriented federal branches actually grew faster than the military, against the wishes of the Gipper. They were Tip O'Niel's budgets, not Reagan's.
Our own "customer" database (Score:3)
There would have to be a way to link the answers to people if it is going to sell. But a free software organization could collect such information from people willing to volunteer it and sell it, using the proceeds to fund projects. And a summary of the data could be a powerful argument for the size of the free software community whether or not it is sold.
Damages (Score:2)
The information is beaing treated as an asset with value. Toysmart's violation of their promise could be interpreted a theft of that value. (i.e. Now I can't sell my info to the marketer, because Toysmart already sold the pirated info.) Therefore, the damages are at least as high as the sale price of the information.
---
This isn' a hard place for libertarians (Score:2)
There is no conflict. Most libertarians approve of using government to oppose force and fraud. This Toysmart thingie is a form of fraud.
---
Re:a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
So, as a libertarian, I have a problem here.. An inner conflict, if you will. One one hand, I believe (like a good libertarian should) that there should be less government. That the government should keep its hands out of just about everything. But on the otherhand, without the government, toysmart can violate my rights. Microsoft can crush my company. And I cannot stop them.
That's the eternal question. Government can be a great force to protect those who it represents. But it can also easily trample on people's rights. Right now, libertarians and republicans believe that government is too big. Democrats and Green Party Members think that it isn't big enough.
The LP wants to have a government which is pared almost completely away-- ie no foreign policy other than national defense, no consumer protection laws, etc. An idea LP consists of the police, the military (but they only deal with threats once they are at our borders), and the judiciary.
Then you get something like this. Does this violate their privacy policy? Is this an assurance or a contract? I don't know, but I know it is a bad thing-- worse for the .com's which survive the current storm, and who have to deal with a suddenly more wary public. Many companies even used deceptive language to sell their data.
I don't know what the libertarians will say, other than perhaps "if noone buys from .coms, they'll have to enforce their privacy rules". It hasn't worked so far, and won't stop companies going bankrupt, but maybe give it time.
Of course, the Republicans have a more moderate view. They feel that there is a role for government in things like privacy, but that it is too big and powerful right now. You don't hear about it on the TV or in poly sci class, because they want you to think that Republicans Are Evil, but there is a very large number of republicans who adhere to libertarian principles but do see a need for government sometimes.
No offense to the libertarians here (i think they're the second best party in the US), but I think that being ideologically absolute isn't always such a great idea. Government does have a role, though the LP is right to think that it is way out of control. In EE class, they always used to say that the world is analog. I think they were right about that in more ways than one.
Re:click-through and shrinkwrap licenses (Score:2)
If you violate Microsoft's license, you're liable for mostly civil penalties. The Federal Bankruptcy court can wipe out civil liability.
So, you "agree" to not redistribute Win2000 Pro, then do so anyway. Get a greasy lawyer to deal with the criminal aspects, if any and then just sit stoicly through the civil damages trial. Upon losing, you emerge from the state civil trial and announce your impending bankruptcy. Poof! You're out of debt, including the debt recently acquired at the hands of a state Civil jury.
DISCLAIMER: I'M NOT A LAWYER. Consult a competent attorney before taking my advice, or, beter yet don't take my advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How Binding? (Score:2)
Newspapers adverts are solicitations of offers, that is, asking you to come in and offer them the sale price for the item.
If they don't want to sell it to you at the price you just offered, they don't have to. Nothing wrong there.
Several exceptions to this are specific sales to specific customers(e.g. $10.00 printer to the first customer in our Dallas, Texas store who can answer this trivia question:...) and bait-and-switch regulations (administered by either the U.S. Federal Trade Commission or similar state agencies, and violating statues, but NOT breaching private contracts).
As for privacy policies, I'm not sure. Depending on the case law (of which I'm not an expert), there might or might not be a contract. Problem: what consideration (normally, but not necessarily, $$$) did you give? Perhaps your demographic info/email address/etc. Perhaps not enough.
If not a breach of contract, you can normally argue for promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance). Promise made that you relied on to your detriment. In this case, "your detriment" might be hard to prove. Since you were willing to give your email address to ToySmart (and perhaps shown to have been spread by you all over the internet), then how have you been harmed? No harm, no foul.
Of course, these are all problems with private actions against ToySmart. In cases such as these, it is nice to have something like the FTC fighting on your side.
Re:Why is this insightful? (Score:2)
The choices are simple - wipe the data, or pay the penalty.
Let departing co. officers know they're watched! (Score:3)
Re:It not an asset, it's a liability! (Score:2)
Re:click-through and shrinkwrap licenses (Score:2)
Incorrect. There is a big fat hairy difference between overt representations and mutually-agreed contracts.
The ad you see in the paper for a hard disk at Fry's is not a contract; the vendor has not entered into a binding agreement to sell you the item at the advertised price. That agreement happens at the cash register. Nevertheless, it is illegal to advertise a particular price, and then refuse to sell at that price (or claim they're out of stock and try and sell you a different piece of merchandise). Such an action is called bait-and-switch, and is rightly prosecuted by the FTC as fraud.
Shrinkwraps, OTOH, claim to be a "contract" constraining your ability to use the merchandise you just bought and paid for. These are monsterously unethical instruments whose legality is still in serious question. See my lengthy editorial [best.com] on why they shouldn't be taken seriously.
You are attempting to conflate advertised store policy with a binding contract. I am certain that contract law and the fine points of assent to contracts will not be an issue in this case, nor will they be raised by the FTC. This is a straightforward issue of "bait-and-switch" -- consumer fraud.
As for shrinkwraps, the sooner they are abolished, the better.
Schwab
Go for injunction, not class action (Score:2)
how bankrupt can they be? (Score:2)
(emphasis mine)
--
Re:How Binding? (Score:2)
This is retail however, and I don't know how much carryover there would be. I know phone companies have gotten in trouble before for similiar things. There is a certain standard that things have to written to. You aren't allowed to try and claim everybody can consult a lawyer.
Re:See? (Score:2)
All contracts are revoked by bankruptcy (Score:2)
I don't like this, but I rather suspect that the FTC is about to lose. Why should the contract between Toysmart and those customers who gave away information be any more binding than that between Toysmart and those customers who ordered merchandise which they will now never recceive?
Re:toysmart and others (Score:2)