Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy 315

Posted by Hemos from the go-move-vermont dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy More

Vermont Goes Opt-In, Corps Unhappy

Comments Filter:

  • Hurt consumers? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sivar ( 316343 ) <charlesnburns[ AT ]gmail DOT com> on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:01AM (#2973064)
    Ya, all sorts of horrible things happen to me when companies can't sell my personal information. :)
    • I would be very upset if I stopped getting junk mail and dinner time phone calls. If my state did that, I'd probably sue them for the pain and suffering it would cause. You know, those people always have the best products.

    • Re:Hurt consumers? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Darkstorm ( 6880 )
      Just a though, but wouldn't personal info belong to the person, and by a company selling that information, wouldn't the person who owns that information (namely the person who's info is being sold) be entitled to royalties? I mean if a company took someones picture and used it in an add then that person could sue the company placing the add. Unless they got permission. So why is personal info so much difference than a picture, or a voice?

      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.
      • I think this is true in Germany. I may have the wrong country, but I know some places in Europe do that. Unfortunately in America, no, your personal information is not your property.

        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.
    • Company man: "Yeah, ya see this consumer here?" *points with his black jack to man tied to chair* "Well, if you pass this new law, I'm afraid he might get hurt, and that'd be a real shame." *grins evily* "A real shame."
    • "Ya, all sorts of horrible things happen to me when companies can't sell my personal information. :)"

      Yeah, I might not get all that porno spam that I apparently want.

  • Legal options (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wysoft ( 301924 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:03AM (#2973066) Homepage
    What kind of legal actions are available for consumers who have been targeted by corporations who choose to violate opt-in laws? Does this apply to only coporations within state?

    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! :)

    • Simple, you call the BSA and report that that company is violating software piracy laws.

      If you cant kill the beast at least we can use them to take down the spammers.

  • oddly.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by skotte ( 262100 ) <iamthecheeze@@@gmail...com> on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:03AM (#2973067) Homepage
    oddly i am in a whole bunch of "opt-in" solicitation services who send me bungloads of email everyday. i dont recall opting in fFor a single one of them, but that sure hasn't stopped them.

    • Re:oddly.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by redcup ( 441955 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:25AM (#2973121)
      okay, this isn't a troll -

      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 .com (think: primary internet portal). They have a specific ad package that targets only newbies - ads that appear the first time the visitor has the cookie set. Apparently these users click on ads like crazy. They haven't learned yet. And with all the new internet users every day, there will always be a bevey of people that want to opt-in not knowing the difference.

      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)

        by bero-rh ( 98815 )
        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.

        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.
        • Paid spamcop.net filtering service is an option. People will be asked to confirm that they want to contact you by clicking on a link. Sounds like a reasonable requirement for those conserned about security. Also here's your chance to customize the standard "click request" to remind users to provide some information (e.g. version of the software in question).
      • They have a specific ad package that targets only newbies - ads that appear the first time the visitor has the cookie set. Apparently these users click on ads like crazy. They haven't learned yet.

        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)

    by snipingkills ( 250057 ) <freelancefoolNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:04AM (#2973068) Homepage
    I consider this a point for all the citizens in Vermont. This makes it just a little harder to get personal information from businesses. Granted the information is still out there, but this is a step in the right direction.

  • Ask us? (Score:3, Funny)

    by CoreyGH ( 246060 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:06AM (#2973073) Homepage
    Can't they do some broad consumer review asking how we, the consumers, feel about being hurt by this? That way we can all say, "Yes it hurts; but getting a little dutch rub from Vermont law is preferable to being boiled in oil by corparate if(screw customer=makemoney) then exec(screw customer) policy . . ."
    • the argument is you don't have to opt-in for snail-mail spam, so why should you put restrictions on internet companies beyond the regulations on brick and mortor companies? Don't get me wrong - I think they should all be opt-in. But regulating e-mail beyond what snail-mail is regulated isn't fair.

      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)

        by spectral ( 158121 )
        they are completely different beasts, though. 1) Most of the mail sent to me snail-mail is at least somewhat targeted. I am a college student, therefore they assume that I want to get myself thousands of dollars in debt with high rate everyone-accepted credit cards. I also get things such as coupons and stuff for local businesses. The reason they target more in snail mail is because it costs them to send the mail. I doubt a 13 year old would want advertisements for a credit card (or my dog.. though it has gotten some), since they can't use it. Therefore, companies don't send them. It boosts the signal to noise ratio, and sometimes might hit on something i'm interested in.

        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)

        by jimhill ( 7277 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:54AM (#2973164) Homepage
        The difference is that with postal mail, the advertiser bears the cost. With electronic mail, the recipient does. If you have a great product that will help me INCREASE my EJACULATION by 6000%!! then by all means you're free to try to get me to buy it -- but at your expense, not mine. Unless, that is, I have been in touch with you before and been so pleased by your FREE! and LEGAL! DVD COPYING! and CABLE! DESCRAMBLER! that I've given you blanket permission to let me know of any other miracle products you have to offer.

        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)

        by plague3106 ( 71849 )
        I don't recall seeing anything in the article that said it didn't apply to snail mail.

      • Re:Ask us? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by krugdm ( 322700 )
        Of course, if they didn't have all that junk mail to deliver, then perhaps they wouldn't have to keep raising the price of stamps to pay for the infrastructure to keep increasing their capacity.
        • No, completely the opposite. 1/3rd of the USPS' revenue is from 1st class mailing of bills; think about that, what else do you really mail besides bills? The rest is junk mail, paid by the senders. If it weren't for the junk mail, I'd receive and send about 20 mail a month. That's only $6.80. With 200 houses on my carrier's route, that's only $1340 a month in revenue, not even enough to cover the carrier's paycheck. Maybe double the price of the 1st class stamp, but you still would only cover the carrier's paycheck. To pay for everything else, we'd probably be paying $10 for a single 1st class stamp.

          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.

        • I used to help keeping the cost of stamp down. I received tons of junk mails everyday, with the reply envelop that says "no stamp needed if mailed in the US". So, I inserted a couple of junk papers (yeah, from other junk mailers, of course, and with my name/code/bar code, etc removed). On top of that, I added in some hummingbird poo from my backyard, or some crashed snails/slug, or just some glueish thing (But don't put those from when you blow your nose, just in case they do DNA matching :).

          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.
      • This argument comes up all the time, but think of this, the US mail worked for 200 years before bulk commercial mail. And every day Americans could always afford to send a letter. I doubt mail prices would go up that much if all the snail mail spam disappeared.

  • States' Rights (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Matchu ( 62602 )
    I guess States don't have the right to protect their citizens' privacy? Or is that something the federal government bears full responsibility for?
  • It'll hurt consumers? Man. The complaint is so bogus as to be laughable and embarassing. So what if I miss out on another FANTABULOUS offer for the AMAZING X-10 CAMERA!?!

    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.
    • Has anyone out there actually bought an X-10 camera? I hope not.

      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.

      • 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.

  • Those poor consumers (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:10AM (#2973088) Homepage
    Instead of adapting systems to meet the state's rules, they are warning that Vermont residents may be excluded en masse from the kinds of offers and information that data sharing allows.
    Oh, how my heart bleeds for the deprived residents of Vermont.
  • Is that people who run/work/clean businesses are also consumers. It's very likely that they understand mass marketing/solicitation benefits have on their companies, and as such, are unlikely to mind it too much.

  • phone books? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by skotte ( 262100 )
    this might be a silly point. but does this law actually carry any real weight? see, you technically Opt-In fFor your phone number and address to be listed in the phone book. that is what most people think of when you think of 'personal info'.

    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?
    • The true effect of this law won't be seen in your spam. It will be felt by the large data wholesalers. There exists an entire industry that buys and resells personal information in bulk. These corporations are a nightmare for anyone who hates junk mail because they are the ones who spread your address from one advertizer to the rest of the industry. They have no way of collecting opt-ins, obviously-they buy information from others, and even if you opted in to the original seller there are no resale rights.


      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.

    • see, you technically Opt-In for your phone number and address to be listed in the phone book

      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.

      • 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)

    by malkavian ( 9512 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:14AM (#2973097)
    Sure it'll raise the cost of bulk emails..
    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)

    by Anonymous Coward
    "Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers."

    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)

    by trenton ( 53581 ) <trentonl@NOSPAm.gmail.com> on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:22AM (#2973117) Homepage
    Finally, government doing some actual good in the realm of technology. It's also easy to implement, as Costle said:
    The industry can just assume that everybody with a Vermont ZIP code has opted out. That's the easy way to fix your computers.
    For most people, that'd be 2 - 3 joins and a where zip between <= 05001 and zip >= 05907 clause.

    This whole opt-out deal sounds totally reasonable and something the people really want. Nice going Vermont!

  • As a consumer, the corps can rest assured that I do indeed want to be "hurt" by a law that says I don't have to go to all the trouble of sending in opt-out mail to companies that think the details of my personal life are their property to do with as they please. Fsck those fscking fsckers.

    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)

    by poemofatic ( 322501 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:27AM (#2973124)


    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)

      by Nicolas MONNET ( 4727 ) <nicoaltiva@gmai l . c om> on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:57AM (#2973171) Journal
      Knowing what diseases I have, what brand of lubricant I use, how often I have hemorroids or what brand of bourbon I use to get drunk is not going to make the world a better place, but it can make one's life miserable if used wrongly.

      Being able to use software freely, improve it, share it with friends and adapt it IS going to make the world a better place.

    • "Information wants to be free" in the same sense that "water wants to flow downhill".

      And, yes, IP laws are every bit as environmentally damaging and profitable for a few as hydroelectric dams.

  • Raises costs, hurts consumers... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:29AM (#2973128)


    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)

    by jchawk ( 127686 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:32AM (#2973136) Homepage Journal
    Here's something you can do to fight snail mail spam in your state. When you receive a piece of junk mail, open it and take out the pre-paid postage envelope. Now open a second piece of junk mail and take it's contents and stuff it into the first pre-paid envelope. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat with every piece of junk mail you get. Then take them and mail them back to the fuckers who sent them.

    Think about it, they are paying twice to get 0 results. :-)

    • I did this for a long time (Score:5, Interesting)

      by legLess ( 127550 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @12:04PM (#2974470) Journal
      A friend of mine works for the USPS, and she turned me on to it. It helps pay her salary, plus those business reply envelopes are expensive. She said the key was to get enough crap in the envelope that it weighed over an ounce.

      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)

    by vandan ( 151516 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @05:50AM (#2973155) Homepage
    When I got my phone connected, they mis-spelt my last name. I have never seen my last name spelt like that ANYWHERE else.
    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 /var/log/messages
    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 // my place of work) were related?

    • 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.

    • Judging from the crap I see in our logs spammers may well be simply taking every first-initial-last-name combo they have and using them on every domain under the assumption that if there is a jsmith at one domain there may well be jsmiths at several more.

  • Smug (Score:2, Informative)

    by sap.de ( 557490 )
    We have this in Europe for some time now.

    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)

      by BillTheKatt ( 537517 )
      You also have VAT (Value Added Tax) and euro-government subsidized aircraft manufacturers (Airbus). Not to mention the German (.de) tree huggers who chew the US out about not supporting the Kyoto CO2 emissions limits, but are shutting down the clean German nuclear plants and replacing them with CO2, polluting oil generators.
      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)

      by Teun ( 17872 )
      I wish you were right, such sites do exist and trading in personal info is illegal in some European countries.
      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)

    by martin ( 1336 ) <<maxsec> <at> <gmail.com>> on Friday February 08, 2002 @06:01AM (#2973176) Journal
    This is covered in the UK for years with the DP act.

    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.

  • screwed up (Score:4, Funny)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @06:45AM (#2973228)
    Naturally, companies aren't happy, and trade groups are suing the state, claiming the law will raise costs of doing business and hurt consumers.

    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)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @06:46AM (#2973230) Homepage

    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 .com goes tits up.

    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)

    by guttentag ( 313541 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @07:01AM (#2973248) Journal
    Opt-in is seen as a tougher standard because it forces companies to sell consumers on the idea of information sharing.
    How awful for the companies, and the consumers!

    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.

  • The population of the whole state is 575,000 people, about the same as Nashville Tenn. With this and other pain in the a$$ laws many businesses will decide the tiny population is not worth the trouble. Any regulation has a cost, that cost is not going to be paid out of corporate profits it will be paid by consumers
    • So all those businesses that ceaselessly try to peddle their unnecessary junk to anyone with a mailbox will leave the state? Where's the downside?

  • Where this will become interesting.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sargon666777 ( 555498 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @07:14AM (#2973271) Homepage
    I work for a Worldwide Telecommunications business, and they sell all of thier lists... The interesting part is when your national, and this law applies only to Virginia we will have to opt-out everyone only in Virginia. So that makes it a tad more difficult.. Considering half the time the state information we have for the customer is old, or out of date, or deliberatly inaccurate. despite the extra work this will generate however I think it is a good idea. Personally I jsut wish it was the whole US instead of just Virginia.

  • 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]
  • Lawyer: "Excuse me, ma'am, but have you ever received spam before?" Woman: "Yes...I have to delete hundreds of messages a day!" Lawyer: "She's biased! Throw her out!"

  • Better late than never... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @08:12AM (#2973391) Homepage
    We in Norway have had this for quite some time, and it works well. Apart from your typical "MAKE $$$$ FAST" and "INCREASE YOUR LENGTH WITH 200%" scams from somelameass@hotmail.com, it works well against (half-)serious companies stuffing your email. Threatening them with fines and imprisonment for up to six months (of course there's a world of difference between the average punishment and the maximum sentence) gets most people thinking...

    Kjella

    Kjella
  • Much as I like this sort of law, I wonder if it will pass Constitutional tests sure to be launched by the various industry groups. It could be seen as affecting Interstate Commerce, which would be in violation of the Interstate commerce clause.

  • Take VT with Permission (Score:3, Funny)

    by msheppard ( 150231 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @10:04AM (#2973721) Homepage Journal
    After VT passed the same sex marriage law recognition thing, there were people opposing it and putting big signs on their lawns reading:

    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
  • I'd sure like to know exactly who it is that is fighting Vermont's new privacy rules. I just want to identify the enemy.
    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?
  • What if people took all the polititians email addresses from their web sites and put them in to every "win big" and other sites that you know sell and spam/abuse the information. If the lawmakers offices are continually flooded with spam and junk mail maybe then they would concider it worth stopping.
  • If anything, the lawsuit is what's going to raise costs for everyone.

    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.
  • I know Senator Wellstone is a big proponent of this opt-in at the federal level.

    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.h tm l

    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.
  • Most people (myself included) tend to opt-out of everything whever the opportunity is given out of principle. We're all so sick of all the advertisements we get sent to us that we'll opt out of everything to try to minimize it, even though we might be a little interested in, say, what WinAmp may be up to lately.

    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.
  • From the article:

    ...opt-out offers are usually ignored; only 2% to 3% of consumers opted out in response to the privacy notices mailed out this past summer, according to federal and industry sources.

    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)

    by joonasl ( 527630 )
    It just love the way suits seem to have the best of the consumers in their mind, especially when they are forbidden to do what ever they please.

    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..

  • When I was in college (more years ago than I care to mention), those "Public Interest Research Groups" used an opt-out for funding. Yep... CalPIRG and MoPIRG got my money automatically from the university (UCSC and Wash. U, respectively) unless I explicitly opted out.

    So much for the "Public Interest".

  • A good start... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @12:30PM (#2974632)
    Europe has fairly strong privacy laws.
    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)

    by gordguide ( 307383 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @12:45PM (#2974739)
    Here's a link which provides quick info regarding Canada's law:
    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).
  • I'm seriously considering copyrighting my identity. And while I'm at it I think I'll encrypt it as well.

    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)

    by kindbud ( 90044 ) on Friday February 08, 2002 @03:05PM (#2975625) Homepage
    And that's exactly what companies might do. Instead of adapting systems to meet the state's rules, they are warning that Vermont residents may be excluded en masse from the kinds of offers and information that data sharing allows.

    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! :). That's one of the funniest things I have ever read!

Slashdot Top Deals

Suggest you just sit there and wait till life gets easier.

Close