Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Minnesota Bill Would Prevent Disclosure of Web Habits 156

Posted by timothy from the how-quaint-an-idea dept.
jweb writes: "The Minneapolis Star Tribune is running an article about a bill in the Minnesota legislature that would make it illegal for an ISP to disclose personal information about websites that its customers visit. According to the article, this bill has passed both houses of the legislature, with one key difference: the House version requires customers to 'opt-out' of this information-sharing, but the Senate version would be 'opt-in', requiring the customer to specifically state that they would like their personal information made available. Not suprisingly, AOL and Yahoo are lobbying against it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Minnesota Bill Would Prevent Disclosure of Web Habits More

Minnesota Bill Would Prevent Disclosure of Web Habits

Comments Filter:

  • How will they enforce it? (Score:4, Funny)

    by wrinkledshirt ( 228541 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:16PM (#3312954) Homepage
    Minnesota, eh? I can just see it now...

    "Failure to comply with the terms of this legislation will result in you being thrown over the ropes and body-slammed into the announcer's desk."
    • Hey just b/c our Governor can beat up your Governor doesn't mean you have to pick on him...

      He pulled a pretty funny April Fools prank if you haven't heard. He had a press conference called hastily that morning (It was snowing quite hard) to announce he was running for Gov again, then said "April Fools." and left the room.

      hahahahaha..tax money wasted no doubt but oh well
    • Who's Minnesota Bill? Is he related to Buffalo Bill? Did they ever meet?

  • Spyware (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BrianGa ( 536442 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:17PM (#3312959)
    Why does this bill not go after third party programs/spyware such as Gator?

    • Re:Spyware (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DeltaBlaster ( 300386 )
      One thing at a time. Besides, ISP's selling information to other sources and programs/spyware (such as gator) are kind of different issues. One you really don't have any control over and the other you have some control (You can uninstall the software)

      Just my 2cents
    • Why does this bill not go after third party programs/spyware such as Gator?

      Granted, that would be nice, but you have to start somewhere. I think it was some eastern philosopher that said, "The journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step."
      Think about it, this is that first step. Don't disparage it because it doesn't do everything for everyone. Come on, lets hear a huzzah for at least getting this much, assuming it passes, and survives the courts.

  • Now I can look at pr0n and not get sued ;)

  • Yahoo! (Score:4, Funny)

    by sfrenchie ( 524076 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:19PM (#3312969) Homepage
    No doubt Yahoo! is lobying to get a "force re-opt-out" option in the House version. This "force re-opt-out" clause would allow ISPs to switch all of their customers to having "opted-in" every 30 days! Yahoo!

    • What the. . . (Score:3, Interesting)

      by czardonic ( 526710 )
      What is it with these opt-out fanatics? It seems like a pretty bare-faced admission that they know that people don't want their products/services. Why must the vast majority of us who don't want to be solicited go out of our way to be left alone? Finally, what does it say about your product/service when your target audience is too inept to request it?
      • > What is it with these opt-out fanatics? It seems like a pretty bare-faced admission that they know that people don't want their products/services. Why must the vast majority of us who don't want to be solicited go out of our way to be left alone? Finally, what does it say about your product/service when your target audience is too inept to request it?

        It says "We're marketers-for-hire! Our job is to con your boss into thinking we can help him con his customers! If your boss, who at lest knows how much his product sux0rz, is dumb enough to fall for this, then surely his customers must be dumb enough to fall for it too!"

      • Re:What the. . . (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Publicus ( 415536 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @08:58PM (#3313638) Homepage

        I live in Minnesota, and the difference between the House and the Senate on this one is not surprising. The House is Republican controlled, and the Senate is controlled by the Democrats. What gets passed on the floor of the House and on the floor of the Senate means nothing, all of that is just posturing for campaigning. The Republicans don't want to seem anti-business or pro big-government. What really counts is the conference committees that are happening right now. It is there where the bills' differences are ironed out to be passed on to the Governor for his body slam, er signature.

        I shouldn't say the full sessions are worthless. Basically, if something isn't in the House or Senate of a bill, it's not going to appear in conference committee. Usually though, the two sides, behind close doors, make decisions that are much more moderate than their respective party caucuses would like to think. In this case, I would think the opt-in strategy will win. It will be interesting to see though, and I'm glad I live in Minnesota on this one, because I know my Governor is going to sign this one!

  • maybe now all the other states will think about following suit. This is a good precedent, imho.

  • Corporations, not just Yahoo and AOL of course, have this problem where they think your personal information belongs to them.

    I do not know how many times I've had my email address, phone and other details divulged around this "partnership" marketing crap.

    The answer to this is to use an ISP that specifically tells you that they do not sell your information. Only *then* will other sleeze-bucket outfits like AOL fall into line.

  • We've been getting screwed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by freakboy303 ( 545077 ) <kasjogren@hotm a i l.com> on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:20PM (#3312979) Homepage
    I live in Minnesota (and love it btw being from Dallas originally) and I think this has a lot to do with the BS that Qwest has been pulling lately although a lot of it could be election year politics in general because this is heating up to be vital election here. I can definitely say that writing your representative might have done some good here though since I went on a letter writing campaign on several issues a few weeks ago. Maybe the computer gods just love me though.
  • As a resident of the state...only a suburb away from Hopkins, it's unusual to see the state doing something that doesn't involve us paying more taxes for.

    If they can do it, more power to them, I say. Of course, if they can tax us and still do this, the bastards will find a way.

    Welcome to Minnesota...the state where absolutely nothing is allowed...but at least we do it to cor

  • YOUR FAULT (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:21PM (#3312990)
    They're tracking you, they can track you. Use peer to peer anonymizer tools like peekabooty.

    I've said it before, and I'll said it agai:

    WE NEED TO USE ENCRYPTION MORE.

    there.

    We all talk about using encryption, but how many of our emails are actually encrypted. We need to start encrypting regular email. Now, if you encrypt email.. it looks suspicious. Now, when you browse anonymously, it looks suspicious.
    Soon privacy will be suspicious.
    Don't believe me? Watch.

    If you dont defend it the fourth amendment will be a forgotten and irrelevant.
  • So they can't disclose this information anymore if all goes well.

    Does this mean that they will still keep track of everybody and give the information to the goverment incase they ask for it, or use it theirselves?
    Or are do they have to do a "killall information_tracking_d" ?
    (or a manual ctrl+alt+del -> taskmanager -> information_... -> end process everytime they reboot their servers;)
    • A good question. I'm guessing that since there's no money to be made, they won't keep any more data than is needed for their site security.

    • Re:What about the law? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CaseStudy ( 119864 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @10:27PM (#3314042) Homepage
      The government can require them to keep track of the information as part of an investigation. But they need a warrant, court order or subpoena to ask for it. (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 USC 2701 et seq.)

      The big problem is that the ECPA specifically allows electronic communications services to give this information to non-government entities without the subscriber's permission. Eliminating that provision on the federal level (making it illegal to give out that information absent either the subscriber's permission or a subpoena/court order) would be easily done and give a heck of a lot more privacy to users.
  • Yahoo and AOL are against it because of the DMCA, and yakity-yakity blah blah blah. Also, imagine if we could get a beowulf cluster of these?

    Seriously, I think it falls into personal privacy just as phone messages would be. I really think its only a matter of time before by default, it becomes legal precedent.
  • I don't care, as long as I'm clearly notified of my rights, its easy to do, and its enforced.
    • You should care because an opt-in system will default to giving you privacy, while an opt-out system will default to you not having privacy.

      Of course, we can expect the worst from everyone: if it gets made opt-in, everyone will just change their user agreements to require you to opt-in to subscribe to anything, and if it gets made opt-out, they'll just do their best to hide the opt-out screen and make the process as difficult as possible... but we can at least start out in the right direction.

  • I don't understand this privacy thing fully... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kenthorvath ( 225950 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:25PM (#3313012)
    I'm interested in people's opinions. What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM), but advertising targeted at a particular group of people? If no names are exchanged and there is no government conspiracy, is there really an issue? It would seem that targetted ads are more effective, thereby being less intruisive (they show you things that you actually care about), and reduce the need for more invasive methods of advertising which is like shooting in the dark. I agree, I don't want my porno preferences and sleeping arrangements sent to Big Biz, but is there actually harm in letting a little bit of information out? Just wondering....
    • Its kind of a fallacy.
      I use deoderant, is direct marketing deoderant going to get me to change my habits? no.

      Plus there is an industry the makes money from selling that information, and the more information they sell the more money they make. do you think you won't gte targetted to by companies your not interested in.

      I think the last few years should have taought people is that advertising doesn't work as well as people use to think. Plus, the target audience for most things is pre/early teen. That is when most people develop the habits that guid there purchases for the rest of there lives. what soda they drink, deoderant they wear, brand of underwear, etc...


      • I use deoderant, is direct marketing deoderant going to get me to change my habits? no.

        how bout:

        I buy servers for my company. Is direct marketing a type of server going to get me to change my habits?

        Possibly. If someone (IBM) comes along and offers a new line of boxes, and a support contract to match them, that outperforms what I have (SUN) for a reasonable price, and I might be in the market for servers in the next year or so, then yes. Its very much possible that this direct, targetted marketing could change my mind.
        • Bad example- you just cited a list of conditions (new line, support, performance, etc.), where marketing is normally more about distorting reality. Anyone in charge of buying servers would be smart enough to look around at all the major vendors before buying.

          Now management and ads..... but management pretty much only understands dollars and Microsoft.
        • I DO buy servers, and I recently was looking for one.
          I, in the past (on contract jobs) have purchased IBM, COMPAQ (that wasn't my fault though!), HP, Sun, and Penguin.
          I liked the service, sales people, and the servers that Penguin sells. I recently (ordered last week, received today) had to purchase a new server... I got "direct marketing" from IBM... and am not comfortable with the COMPAQ/HP merger talks. I hate Dell (and receive spam from their offices about 7 times a month). Sun, they need to decide on a business model, and practices. I went with Penguin!
          Because of previous experience, because of the sales people, and because when I called different companies for price comparisons, I DIDN'T get 20-70 emails telling me how "great" their servers are. I got a knowledgable sales person who offered me advise on RAID, redundant power supplies, advanced power management, the benefits vs. the disadvantages of AMD and Intel (I prefer AMD, but this server went with Intel, because of Dual Redundant hot-swap power supplies, larger memory capacity, more support for SCSI options, better SMP support). The advice he gave me saved me 600 dollars on a RAID Card (He emailed me instructions on how to set up a Software RAID with hotswap support, so my DB server can get the fabled 5-nine uptime). He also wrote into my 3 year NEXT DAY ONSITE service that Linux Slackware was supported as the installed OS, and that ALL decisions about hardware repair/replacement were mine. Compaq laughed at me being the final decision maker, and flat out refused to support slackware (or freeBSD, the other option). So did IBM, HP, Sun... blah blah.
          My point though is, directed advertising is why I chose Penguin... they DIDN'T spam me, they DIDN'T berate me, they didn't take up my time with "courtesy" (we have a new server... blah blah) calls. They DID NOT direct advertise. Next month, I'm replacing all of our workstations (20)... guess where I'm getting the new AMD desktops? Same as the Firewall hardware, the webservers, email servers.

    • Re:I don't understand this privacy thing fully... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:36PM (#3313072)
      > I agree, I don't want my porno preferences and sleeping arrangements sent to Big Biz, but is there actually harm in letting a little bit of information out? Just wondering....

      You've just made your own counterargument.

      Information wants to be free. Computers are devices that are designed to replicate and transmit information. Once a copy of the information exists, it can be replicated indefinitely and passed on from person to person.

      As a practical matter, there's no such thing as "letting a little bit of information out". It's like being a little bit pregnant.

      You can give information to groups you trust not to abuse it, but as soon as you make a mistake, you're fscked.

      I choose to give some personal information to Slashdot to set up an account because I trust them to keep it reasonably secure, and to inform me when they're 0wned :)

      Likewise, I choose to deny - to the extent that I'm capable - giving information to Doubleclick, Microsoft Passport, and basically anything else with a TrustE seal on it, because the only thing I trust such groups to do with that information is sell it to anyone who wants it.

    • Re:I don't understand this privacy thing fully... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Well, there's this thing called dignity, and you go from there.

      But it's been my experience that people who don't understand the privacy thing, probably never will until the issue eventually harms them directly. Lack of empathy, or self esteem?

      People who invade your privacy are stealing from you. If you can't understand the type of loss that entails, I doubt I or anyone else can put it to words. At some point in your life you should have, or will, develop this understanding, if you are a healthy human being.

    • What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM), but advertising targeted at a particular group of people?

      Perhaps I have missed your point here, but the problem is that, in many cases, people don't want it. I don't need some marketers lies dumped in my mail box each day. Worse yet, those same lies shouldn't be dumped in the mail boxes of people who don't understand what they are reading, enough to help them see the lies in it. Sure, there are truth in advertizing laws, but these are really just for show, companies are able to get around them by performing studies that are completly slanted. Or with the practice of puffing, "Best in the World!!" (not likely, but they are allowed to say it.).
      The idea of stopping directed marketing, is just a protective reaction. I wouldn't want my mother being subjected to Compaq ads the next time she is looking for a new computer. She's a smart lady, but not real computer savvy, and might not realize that buying a Compaq is asking for me to disown her. I realize that its too much to hope that people will work to make informed choices all of the time. But at least, having them in the dark enough to ask those around them, that know better, is better than having them make choices based on marketing lies.

    • I'm interested in people's opinions. What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM), but advertising targeted at a particular group of people?

      The problem is abuse. As markets move quicker and faster still, marketing budgets increase in orders of magnitude, as a company that has no name recognition for a product it's been selling for six months is basically screwed.

      The problem is that marketing knows only to match what the industry does - grow. We've seen many cases where a particular company staked out into uncharted territory and was richly rewarded for it...but on the other hand, we've seen tenfold or more cases where they were either scorned, slow, selfish, or stupid. Marketing in brute force is a proven tactic because even the worst product has a buyer somewhere who is stupid enough to fall for it.

      My problem with it is that marketing yesterday, today, and tomorrow is *all* about mindshare. Companies consistently bombard me with ads for a product that I either have already, don't have money for, or have no interest in altogether. I've been seeing banner ads all over the place for my DSL provider. I already have an account with them, so this ad is a waste of money for them. However, if targeted advertising wasn't a pipe dream, and if they had competition in my area (they don't), then their competitors would be bombarding me with ads day-in and day-out until I switched. And then what? I'll get the same treatment back from my old provider. If Coke knows you buy Coke and agrees tos top sending you ads, then what do you think Pepsi is going to do? Suppose you change to Pepsi. Then what?

      The problem is bigger than marketing. The problem is that, in the eyes of the industry, we have mutated from homo sapiens into homo emptoris [nd.edu].
    • What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM),

      I'm one of those weird people who rarely purchase anything other than food and other necessities. I don't want consumer advertising targeted at me. When I need to know about something, I will research it and get a much more balanced view than any advertiser dares give me. In the rare case when there is a completely new product that I might want to know about, I 'll probably come across a product review in a magazine, or website that I frequent. If I don't it's not a big deal.

      The only form of targetted marketing I can think of that I have ever found beneficial is from vendors that specialize in narrow areas and that I have previously done business with. Even Amazon, who knows my purchase history, has rarely shown me anything I'm interested in in their Suggestions. Too much generalization in their categories.
      • I'm totally with you, except for a minor deviation with Amazon. Maybe I've bought a lot more stuff from them so they have me better targeted, but at least 90% of their suggestions to me are good. Problem being that at least half of their suggestions are things that I already have, but purchased at the local Barnes and Nobel, so they can't filter those items out.

        But yeah, any ad that may have ever piqued my interest was always followed by independent research (well, for anything over $20 at least. I'll buy a book on an interesting ad sometimes.)

    • Re:I don't understand this privacy thing fully... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cabbey ( 8697 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @10:56PM (#3314167) Homepage
      picture this...

      (location is an ISP call center, a phone rings)

      ISP phone droid #729: (picks up phone) Hello, this is $ISP, how may we make your ride on the information super highway smoother?

      caller: I'd like to purchase a list of your users that visit sights like mine for marketing purposes.

      phone droid: let me transfer you to marketing.

      (cut to plush office, with a sleazball in a suit... plaque on wall reads "salesman of the year 1999")

      marketing guy: Why yes Mr. Smith, we can do that. Simply provide us a list of domain names, and we can start send you a list of all $ISP customers that visited that site in the past month ... oh, you want (with emphasis) deep data retreval? ... (eyes spin and green dollar signs come up) Yes we can go back that far. (cha-ching sound)

      (cut to small office, large crucifix hanging on wall behind man on phone)

      man: Yes, that's the end of my list of domains. Uh-huh... yeah... ok I'll be looking forward to it in my inbox, and the check is on it's way. ... You too, thanks. (hangs up phone, turns to hand a slip of paper to someone off camera, revealing a cleric's collar) Sister Doris, would you issue a check to these folks from the Church's "alternate evangelism" fund please, and what is the next ISP in the yellow pages?

      (cut to another view of the same man in the same office, latter that week, working at a computer, removes floppy from diskette drive and turns to hand it to a woman at a smaller desk in the corner)

      man: Sister Martha, would you cross reference this list of email addresses against the church's roster, anyone that appears on both lists, please send them a tithe reminder, jot a note suggesting they meet with me after services on the back. Give the ones that don't match to brother Bruce as potential new members of the One True Way World Church, for his email campaign to save the lost souls.

      (fade to black, ominous music playing.)

      Think it won't happen?

      Think that's air you're breathing?
    • What bugs me is that spam is not like other advertising in that it can cost me money or deny me service without me doing anything! Consider:


      Telemarketing does not cost you anything that you are not already spending (unless they call you on a cell phone). Sure, if enough call you, their industry could deny you phone service (much like a denial of service attack). But phone calls are reletively expensive since they have to pay a real person for each call. If somebody wants to get a hold of you, they will get through.


      Snail mail may fill up your mail box, but it doesn't cost you anything other than the time to throw it in the garbage.


      Radio and TV ads don't cost you anything but time.


      Email and Internet access are something that many people pay for based on volume (or time). If your name gets on the wrong list, a person could use up a significant portion of their monthly allocation to downloading garbage--and they wouldn't be able to do a thing about it. This form of advertisement actually deprives people of a commodity that they paid for.


      Now if advertisers had to pay to send unsolicited email, perhaps through your ISP account, at least enough to cover the cost you would pay to download their messages, they might have a leg to stand on.


      But they don't.

    • What is so terrible about directed marketing (NOT SPAM), but advertising targeted at a particular group of people? If no names are exchanged and there is no government conspiracy, is there really an issue?

      Identifiers (names) have to be exchanged to keep track of which customers belong to which groups. The goal of these data gathering companies is to create profiles and sell them like a credit report.

      Want to rent an apartment? Your land lord will buy a copy of your profile and make sure you haven't been visiting the 'wrong' sites. Want a job? Your employer will buy a copy of your profile and read a few of your Slashdot posts (comments like yours won't form any roadblocks). Witness for a trial? Lawyers for both sides will know your life story inside and out.

      There is a huge market for personal profiles. Corporations are fighting to keep that market open.

  • This is good stuff :)

    I figured, personally that this should be an automatic right.. only infringed upon in a criminal court.

    But who knows.. this is similar to one of the earlier articles today about the internet going way too commercial.

    There should be a law passed regarding the disclosure of information.. a national law, that is.

    AFterall, it is interstate commerce (international, too)

    Hopefully more laws like this will pass. and the bad bad corporate egos will have to gain their business legitematly (spelling :)


  • but jeez wouldn't it be great to introduce topics like this into the court system? This would at least give folks more legal ground/precedent to stand on in future court cases.

  • Active participation is better here (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:28PM (#3313029)
    The terms are strange here, but assuming opt-out means that you took action (normally opt-in) to get out of data collection, that is better than opt-in (which would mean you sign a form allowing them to sell your data).

    Think about it. If you could just file a form with the state government, its pretty easy for anyone that cares to do so.

    If you need to be careful that you NEVER consent to the information, we're screwed. How carefully do you read everything? Ever miss a sentance in boiler plate agreements?

    My concern with the default being privacy, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, is that you'll get tricked into giving up your privacy. You'll have to watch every click, etc. I'd rather just have a form (online or offline) for people that care to fill out than to have to make certain that you never screw up.

    Alex
    • I doubt the opt out will be that simple either.

      The govt. is not going to keep track of who opts out in a central database. It would be up to the individual to opt out w/the various ISP's. And there will probably be some kind of time frame. A lot like what just went on w/banks and credit cards.

      Your opt in concerns are valid and just point out that users will really need to be on their toes either way if they really care about protecting their personal information.

      I am most curious to see how this turns out as the big money is so obviously on one side of the issue.

      .
      • The govt. is not going to keep track of who opts out in a central database. It would be up to the individual to opt out w/the various ISP's.

        Actually, that's not correct. The State of Minnesota is already planning an opted-out (or perhaps opted-in) database, run by the state, to prohibit commercial telemarketing on our home phones. It would be a simple matter for that same database to include ISP accounts, and it is my impression that this is the intention of the bill being discussed here.

    • Re:Active participation is better here (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're making an incorrect assumption that there will be a centralized opt-out list.

      The direct marketer's plan to avoid the latest round of legislation is to go to opt-out, but to ensure that each company (or even each division in a company) has its own, seperate opt-out list.

      That way tracking down the 100 different opt-out forms will be more effort than just accepting the spam for the vast majority of people. They win, nothing substantial has changed except we have another useless law on the books.
    • Gee, every click where? This is so that ISP's can't sell your browsing habits. Sure, read you isp contract, but I do that every time anyways.

      I don't know how ISP's could "trick" you into clicking on something that would invalidate this. I'm sure there are ways, but I don't think I've ever gone to my ISP's web site in about 8 years of internet access so...
  • this is unbelievable. someone is actually succeeding in getting a bill that makes sense through congress? are we sure they understand what the bill means? yes, that must be it. i think that my brain is not handling this well. no, really, this is actually a good thing, and congress is actually even looking at it? now i'm trying to think if possibly could open the door to something evil. they pass this and then afterward something bad happens based on this. hmm. [if only we could put distributed.net on this one.]

  • Minnesota (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 0xB ( 568582 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:34PM (#3313059)
    Is this for websites in Minnesota, customers in Minnesota, or TCPIP packets which happen to go through Minnesota?

    I respect the right of people to make local laws ... but sometimes local laws simply can't work.
  • I would love to see Yahoo and AOL's reasons for lobbying against the bill...

    "Well, as we all know, we provide extraordinary services to our customers, without them knowing it, by giving them the latest advertisements, that are useful, entertaining, and just great! It would be a shame if some users could not receive these because they didn't know they were available. We want to protect consumer's interests!"
    • No, its:

      "We can't provide our services at the current prices without suplementing our revenue by selling information to marketers. Get over it you spoiled, freeloading brats. We can just hear you know: 'Boo hoo, I have to give something in order to get something in return. Life is sooooo unfair.' Holy $hit you people make us sick."

      Something like that, I would imagine.
      • Or:

        "Recent studies have shown," (here's where they hire some 'scientists' to do some intentionally skewed experiment), "that many consumers actually prefer to be made aware of bargains they may be interested in. By sending them these advertisements automatically, we are simply complying with the wishes of the general public."

        Oh, and look out for politicians with their hands in AOL's pockets.

  • Congratulaions go to Congress (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DarkProphet ( 114727 ) <chadwick_nofx@ho ... inus threevowels> on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:42PM (#3313106)
    As a resident and taxpayer of Minnesota, I am pleased. The funny thing about Minnesota is that even though the state is mostly rural, its pretty hip to the whole tech thing. Outside California or New York, Minnesota is one of your more tech-friendly states. The cool thing is that the Congress is also very aware what the tech industry is all about. Its nice to live in a state where you can be a programmer and still live out in God's Country ;-)

    All gushing aside, I'm glad to see the Minnesotan Congress get something Good(TM) done (especially lately). I'm pretty sure Minnesota is also still suing Microsoft.

    Also, in this week's Pioneer Press TECH section, we had such articles such as Linux's determined quest as a desktop os. That article talked about CodeWeavers (of WINE fame) and the work they've done to allow Linux users to decently manipulate MS Office documents. There was also a nice writeup about the plight of internet radio, and how the RIAA is assraping them.
    • Califiornia may seem tech friendly because it contains Silicon Valley, but remember that Hollywood lies several hundred miles to the south, and that Diane Feinstein was one of the key supporters of the CBDTPA.
    • uh... 3 million of 5 million people live in the Twin Cities/suburbs.
      • Yes, I know the majority of the population lives in the metro area. How far can your town be from MSP and still be considered a suburb? I live 40 miles southeast of Minneapolis. The point I was trying to make is that nevertheless, Minnesota is primarily a rural state. There's a damn lot of farmland out here. Also, I thought the metro area population was something more like 1.5 million out of the state's 4 million residents, but thats probably from a census 10 or 20 years ago, so I'm not sure how accurate that figure is now. Of course if we didn't have such an expansive metro area, Minnesota may not be as tech-oriented, but we're not exactly living the Kansas life in the outstate either. Most of the small towns (read: population 500 - 4000) around here are very receptive to technology. Perhaps its different in other parts of the state, but lying between MSP and Rochester offers us a rather unique life here.

        Also, I doubt that the mass of population in the metro is very indicative of anything in particular. The inner-city folk don't seem to be quite as receptive to tech as the folks out here (IMHO because they'd rather spend their money on drugs, but chalk that up to a few too many trips to the east side of St. Paul. Nasty). I think maybe the relaxed way of life out here in the sticks makes for more time to play with hi-tech stuff. In any case, its nice to see our Congress watching out for us.

  • Opt In w/Rewards (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stoolpigeon ( 454276 ) <bittercode@gmail> on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:44PM (#3313115) Homepage Journal
    I would like to see a system where one must opt in and the companies who sell your information must compensate you to some extent.

    Maybe someone could put together a group to protect surfers (SIAA) and they could set up some kind of payment plan for companies who use personal information.

    And that information could be in a propietary format that expires in a set amount of time.

    I envision a grand future of riches for all surfers. (And SIAA lawyers)

    .
    • The SIAA could charge 14/100 of a cent per person... They could lobby the government to create the "Digital Post-Millennial Privacy Act", wherein it becomes illegal to defeat technological anti-decryption techniques on the Private information.
    • I would like to see a system where one must opt in and the companies who sell your information must compensate you to some extent.


      Hmm..so you're saying you are willing to pay for the content that you read also? You are using their information, why aren't they being compensated for it?

      How do you expect a free website to maintain its business by selling untargetted ads? The current ad model does not work and will not work. But unless people are willing to pay subscriptions to access websites, they need some type of way to stay alive.
  • * Reading Slashdot
    * Checking Game Sites
    * Downloading Porn
    * Etc

    Ahh. I feel better having confided my darkest secrets with the Authorities!

  • Online Life (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @06:58PM (#3313168) Journal
    This is actually a "GOOD THING" (tm), I'm rather impressed someone in local Government understands that people are moving parts of their lives online. There needs to be some basic protection from companies to mine this data.

    Just think of some of the areas, support groups for rape, drug use, violence, addictions, cancer, etc... Discussion groups, political, sex, food, hobbies, art, cars, investing, etc..

    These laws act like a catalyst. If we make opt-in mandatory, we can push other areas to require opt-in methods. Opt-out is a scam that big companies like AOL and Yahoo love. It takes a couple weeks for your Opt-out to register, while your data is already sold.

    Its bad enough, you can pull most of a persons life from DMV and Credit reports, do we need a persons intimate personal life also?
    -
    Any fool can tell the truth, but it requires a man of some sense to know how to lie well. - Samuel Butler (1835 - 1902)

    • It takes a couple weeks for your Opt-out to register, while your data is already sold.

      Not only that, but opt-out plans generally expire after a year. If you forget to renew, the company can sell off your data.

      I gave my email address to an e-retailer that someone recommended to me. I opted-out of their promotional marketing. I haven't purchased anything from them since, but one year after my first order, they started sending me junk mail. Since I forgot to renew the opt-out, they felt they could take my old data and start using it.

      AOL does the same thing. If you forget to renew, it is as though you never opted out in the first place. If you want your data to remain private, you have to renew the opt-out every single year for the rest of your life! Even after you are no longer a customer.

  • 'Minnesota Bill', eh? (Score:3, Funny)

    by nakaduct ( 43954 ) on Tuesday April 09, 2002 @07:13PM (#3313223)
    Suit #1: We need to make more money!
    Suit #2: Perhaps disclose of web habits is the answer.
    Suit #1: I concur!

    (door explodes)

    Minnesota Bill: Not so fast!
    Suits #1&2 (unison): Minnesota Bill!

    (Bill lays waste to their plush conference room, taking their scumware source code and user database with him as he leaves).

    If this works out they can employ Bill's sidekicks, Nebraska Tyrone and Maine Blaine, in the fight against spam.

    cheers,
    mike

  • The Bill (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Gaijinator ( 218180 )
    For those who are interested, here's a link to the bill itself: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/getbill . l?number=SF3272&session=ls82&version=latest&sessio n_number=0&session_year=2002 [state.mn.us]. It doesn't say a whole lot more than the article, except that it defines the scope of "customer information" in more detail.
  • if some enterprising ISP in Minnesota would go national and offer those protections to the rest of us. They could advertise letting people know that the data-collecting SOBs aren't looking over your shoulder.

    Anyone know of an ISP in Minnesota with a national presence?
  • You got to wonder about politicians sometimes. Although I did just see an interesting idea on RFN [radiofreenation.net].

    In Washington state there is an initiative petition to require all state and local polititions to take the state wide education test, and then to have the info made public and posted in the official voter guides.

    you can see that story here [nwsource.com].

    Given the usual hassles and cluelessness with polititions, I like this.

  • Minnesota Bill, Fats' lesser known younger brother. The highlight of his career was his big match against Reasonably Quick Bruce. Soon to be a made-for-TV movie on the USA network.
  • Why? Because they know almost no one would...

    And you know what I say? Tough shit! Information like that costs MONEY to gather in any other endeavor. For example, Arbitron and Nielsen are "opt in" and pay a (token) amount to participants.

    If customer information for marketing purposes is so valueable, then make them PAY for it. I think the recent Yahoo! "preferences reset" shows how rife ANY "opt out" system will be for such abuse... When I got that message from Yahoo!, I wanted to go into my account and CLOSE it rather than just reset the preferences..

    Guess what, KILLING OFF your Yahoo! ID (and your information stored, such as your e-mail address) is NOT an option!

    Which means that even if I never visit Yahoo! again nor use any of the "services" you get with a Yahoo! ID, they are still keeping my e-mail address, and other info, and are likely to at some point in the future pull an "oops I did it again".
  • Wow. This is the first I can recall of reading about this bill. I read the Strib daily, and have MPR on, at least as background, maybe 8 hrs a day.
    I guess I just need to pay better attention. But this is triffic news, really, even if it ends up being opt in, I for one, will opt to keep my info private.
    I've always been happy with my ISP - signed up with minn.net in '94, staying with them for DSL saved me hella pain when Qwest screwed all their subscribers while turning them over to the Beast of Redmond. I doubt they would have sold my info before they got bought out about 1.5 year ago, now I just don't know, and I'll be very glad that I don't have to just trust them.

    (BTW, I'm still very happy with minn.net, now owned by Boss technologies, they were great while I set up DSL, they just aren't the good ol' isp I
    originally signed up with.)
  • [Note: Free here as in $0]

    Everyone, face it. The days of the free internet is over. It has not been and will not be economically sound for content providers to just give you content for free. Why must the CNN and the NYTimes of the world give you free content if you have to pay for the same content, if not in a more difficult to handle fashion, offline [$0.75/NYTime or $30/month as part of a packaged cable fee for CNN] The ad revenue model only works when the people that are marketing their products can achieve a measurable result of the ads effectiveness. This just isn't true in the current state of the Internet.

    Now consider this for a second. [Don't just disclaim it as a wild off the wall analysis]. Let's just say that you are a frequent diner to a fine restaurant. Because you are such a frequent customer, the maitre'd knows you personally and greets you immediately giving you personal attention. He gives you your favorite table and because you typically spends upwards of $200 for dinner, he gives you a bottle of your favorite wine complimentary of the house. [Note: he knows your favorite wine because that's what you order every time prior].

    Now let's consider another scenario. This is your first time at this restaurant. You made a reservation, but as usual, they overbooked. You have to wait. The hostess stuffs you into the corner table right by the kitchen. And treats you like everyone else.

    This is the difference between a company tracking your site usage (or internet usage) vs a scenario where your usage is never tracked. My contention is that by giving up a little bit of your information, you are getting a more customized service with value added. It provides for a greater user experience.

    So what's a scenario of this happening online? Suppose that you are shopping for a car. You use the internet to browse through all the Ford Mustangs. You go to ford.com and read up on the new Mustang. You read some reviews on the Mustang and you browse through car dealership sites for Ford Mustangs. You look up the Trade In price on Blue Book. Now that the system knows that you are shopping for Mustangs, sites can customize their ads to your needs. Imagine going to the Kelley's Blue Book site and seeing an ad for a Mustang on sale at carday.com and because they know that you are a serious buyer, they offer you $500 off the list price and because they have rough demographics on the type of person that you are, they give you a good deal on financing [all within the ad] Now all you have to do is click on the Ad and you'll be ready to buy.

    Now, let's look at this:
    • You win in terms of the fact that you get sites or ads customized to your needs.
    • The advertiser wins in terms of they are getting recordable results from their ads


    Alright, before you think that I'm crazy..I was once a skeptic. What changed my mind was Dan Rosen, the CEO of CNet.com was our guest lecturer for my b-school class and this was the stuff that he was talking about. What you have to remember is this: people can opt-out of this tracking buy turning off your cookies. But what you lose is that added value provided it. Without your cookie, the only thing that they could use to track is your IP address, and in many cases, this is dynamic, so each time you will start anew.
    • I disagree... I don't think the failure of advertising is limited ONLY to the Internet... I think it was just the Internet that EXPOSED the fact that "The Emperor has no clothes".

      Internet advertising so far is the ONLY means of advertising that shows 100% accurate stats on views/reads/clicks, and how many result in purchase.

      I'd be willing to bet that if the same accuracy were available for TV, Radio, and other more "traditional" advertising, you'd find similar rates of return, maybe even less.

      IMO, I think the whole advertising/marketing profession is due for a crash soon. Already, TV and radio ad buys are down...

      Radio, in particular is concerned about competition from national, and largely ad-free satcaster radio that offers FAR greater diversity than broadcast radio.

      By bombarding us with ads from every corner and every surface, the marketers have made us more resistant... I liken it to how strains of bacteria eventually develop that resist the latest, most powerful version of penicillin...

      Just as doctors fear "superbacteria" reisistant to ANY penecillin, Marketers should fear taht eventually a "strain" of pissed off consumers will finally become resistant to any and ALL new methods of obnoxious delivery of copy.

      That day is coming, if it's not already here.

    • One major difference, though. If I go to Fiori's every day, the staff there will get to know me and my habits. If I go to Giovanni's, the staff at Fiori's don't know what I ordered there, and it's none of their business. If I want them to know, I'll tell them. My objection to the way businesses want the Internet to work is that it's the equivalent of Fiori's and Giovanni's not just sharing my habits without my permission but the local Restaurant Association snagging the information from both of them to target advertising at me without my permission to do so. If I had wanted Fiori's or the RA to know what I ordered at Giovanni's, I'd've told them. I didn't, so I probably don't and I don't appreciate their spying on me behind my back.

      And if I'm going to the Kelly Blue Book site, I probably don't want ads for particular cars. I want information on the cars I ask for. This is where most businesses get tripped up, trying to guess what the customer wants instead of just asking him and then giving him what he asked for. I don't appreciate stores where the staff are constantly hovering behind me interrupting while I'm looking, and I don't appreciate it on-line either.

    • It's ONLY a win for me if I want to play this sordid little game. I guess it never crossed the minds of those in the marketing biz that there are some people who simply aren't into the 'push' model. That's me. If I want information about products I'm interested in, I'll go find it. I don't need to be spoon-fed by corporate droids with a smile on their face and one hand reaching around for my wallet.
  • My argument for the opt-In philosophy is this as a resident: I as a consumer have a right NOT to do business with any business I choose (i.e I can boycott). I also have a right to do business with ANY company in the U.S (of course there are exceptions. i.e Necessary permits) Take these two right and stick em in the ground as a base to work from. Now does a company have the right to do business with me without my consent based on the prior said rights? My constitutional basis for those prior rights is: 10th Amendment ".... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the States respectivly, or to the people." This amendment states that just because we don't have a documented right to privacy, until the government denies us the right to privacy we citizens have the right. Unless the state takes it from us. My opinion.

  • From Slashdot's article: "the House version requires customers to 'opt-out' of this information-sharing."

    I would like to see users who don't opt-out taught a lesson, but sending them to jail seems a bit harsh.

  • In yesterday's article about the State of Colorado vs Tattered Cover bookstore, the judges came out and confirmed that the First Amendment protects what we read as well as what we say.

    The best quote being from Colorado Supreme Court Justice Bender who wrote "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society."

    I would think that the sites a person visits should be protected in the same way our choice of reading material is. There really isn't any difference between the two media.

  • What's this? That guy visits Slashdot twice a day?! Keep an eye on him. He's DANGEROUS!
  • Will it (still?) be OK for individuals to upload information about their own internet usage?
  • I'm not sure that our good friend Jessie will sign this, 'cause our buddy doesn't believe in the "L" word. We in Minnesota have all discovered this fact by now. For those of you not, uh, privledged, to live under his reign, the word he cannot hear is 'logic'. You see, this bill would simply be too sane and logical, and we can't have that.

    This is the same guy who called a press confrence to tell the world that he was running for reelection, then told us it was an April fool.

    Some guy, huh?

  • Speaking as an admin for a small Minnesota ISP [blackhole.com], I really hope this bill passes. Mainly because if it doesnt, my helpdesk will have to deal with any number of customers calling us up (after learning that ISPs can sell, let alone collect their web browsing habits) and demand that we let them opt-out. Then Ill have to make some sort of stupid opt-out webpage that doesnt really do anything when I could be doing better things like looking at porn or sleeping.

    As it stands we don't even monitor our users activities, beyond keeping connect and disconnect info. Selling this kind of info is just plain wrong, right now it is limited to maybe getting subscribed to a few spam lists, but what about when the telemarketers get in on this? Imagine getting a call: "Hello Mr. Smith, We've noticed that you've been visiting www.something.com recently and would like to inform you of our great deal."

    Thats not the kind of phone call I would want inturrupting my porn veiwing/sleeping.
  • Monolinux [monolinux.com] reports that Mozilla 1.0 is very close at hand [monolinux.com], with a due date of "sometime next week" for 1.0RC1.
  • I was under the impression the the ECPA prevented disclosure of network traffic to any third party, and that monitoring one's network was only allowed to look for technical malfunctions. (Indeed, if one employee found something funny in their searches for hackers, and told another, that would be federally actionable.)

    Did something change?

    --Dan

Slashdot Top Deals

Know Thy User.

Close