Minnesota Passes First Online Privacy Law

Subotai writes: "Finally a state with a clue. Today, Minnesota passed a law forcing ISPs to notify customers before they sell information about them and tell them how to prevent it." Finally, a nice example of how a bill becomes a law.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:or not

[Buran]

A bill to fund the construction of a new stadium here in downtown St. Louis just died in legislature this week. We have a stadium (the famous Busch Stadium) that works, though it could use a renovation. The sponsors of the bill wanted to tear it down and build a "new" old-style stadium in its place.

All because the local baseball team (the Cardinals) decided to whine and threaten to leave if the state didn't build a new stadium. But why, said the citizens, should we fund a new stadium with tax revenues if other things, like education, are hurting? Why should our sales taxes go up? The Univ. of MO is considering imposing surcharges to cover the deficit since the governor can't seem to balance the state budget.

I'd say MO doesn't have a clue either. At least here the stadium bill failed.

Re:or not

[squeegee-me]

What I find interesting but off topic a bit, is that Govener Jesse Ventura of MN vitoed (spelling?) the bill and the others in power (not sure of all the makeups of MN govenment since I moved to MN less than a year ago) over-rode his vito (once again spelling?) to pass the statium.

Also, Busch is a beer company and old-style was a beer company that was bough out by someone (forget who,) but I think if it was not Busch that bought them out, that is is funny/ironic that the team demanded an Old-Style statium.

And Yes, I did laugh at the bumber stickers that said "My Governor can beat up your Governor."

Re:Is it really called the sin tax?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ventura is the root of most of the State's problems. He's an idiot. I wish people would have listened to him when he said he was going to screw over the state when he was running. He is following through with his half-wit ideas. Everyone around the country thinks he's so rad because he's a wrestler. There's a reason that no place else has a wrestler for a governor. Other states' voters realize that wrestlers are idiots, but don't seem to make the connection with Jesse. I wish you people could live here and see what he's really like...

Re:Is it really called the sin tax?

[Knoxvill3]

Sounds like someone's bent over the fact ventura has yet to pass a law that limits the weather in MN to never fall below -12, dontcha know?

Now granted, I live in sunny, liberal albiet, So. California, a far cry from the Iceberg known as Minniesota, but I still watch news and I tend to pay attention some of the time too. I think the state of MN lucked out with getting someone like Ventura. Granted, his years in the wrestling biz helped propel him into the governers chair, but what we've seen out here is someone who gives a crap about their state. Sure, he's probably goof'd and pulled some moves that not everyone is going to agree with, but name a politician that has done everything they promised, and never flubbed up anything during their term.

Anyways, that's an :end to the rant. I say hats off to Minniesota for this, hope other states, like California, follow the lead for once and do something right instead of listening to the Money (RIAA and the sorts).

Re:or not

[ichimunki]

Can you post links that clearly show these "sin" taxes as part of state bills, and then demonstrate how these are related to stadium taxes? The stadium bills I've read contain food, beverage, and entertainment tax provisions, but nothing that would impose a $5 additional tax on a lap dance (which at current rates of $20 per song would be something like a 25% tax). The senate baseball bill is capped at 3%, the house at 5%. And from what I can see the bills are designed to keep Minneapolis from voting for stadium taxes so that either St. Paul can catch the stadium or so that the rest of the state can blame the central city when the team leaves. One can only hope this bill passes the way it does, because I'm guessing Minneapolis voters will shoot down the necessary approvals for additional taxes and we can be done with the whole mess. (At least that's my first blush take on it today).

Tennessee is dealing with the same things

[ShaunC]

While this law is cool, I wouldn't say MN has a clue. They are forcing everyone to pay for our new stadium by the imposition of a "sin tax".

I know this is roving off-topic, but it's worth the karma hit. For anyone who's concerned with their state politics, and especially for anyone living in a state that wants to raise sin taxes, please read this.

I don't know how Minnesota is faring financially, but my home state of Tennessee is broke, really broke. We have no state income tax, and several of the state legislators are trying to change that, but nobody wants it and the chances of a state income tax passing are about the same as the chances of Microsoft open-sourcing Windows. Zip, zero, nada.

So what's the alternate proposal? Sin taxes, of course. "Tax the people who buy cigarettes." "Tax the people who buy beer or liquor." I honestly don't understand why people like me (who smoke and drink) should have to bail the state out of debt. The fact that I smoke and drink does not mean that I have contributed to the state's debt any more than any other individual. Likewise, I should not be held any more responsible for our problems than anyone else. I don't support a state income tax, but if it's that or sin taxes, give me an income tax. At least that's spread equally among all residents.

I'm in Memphis, about 30 minutes from a ton of casinos in Tunica County, Mississippi. There are countless thousands of Tennessee dollars being spent (and lost) in Mississippi casinos every month. That money goes straight to MS. If TN would enact a state lottery, at least some of the casino money would stay in-state, and those who live further away from the casinos for a trip there to be convenient would buy lotto tickets instead, all of which would help to put us in the black... But it'll never happen, because we're in the middle of the bible belt. The Baptists won't let Tennessee have a lottery, because it's a "sin." And they seem to think the only way to bail the state out of debt is to tax "sinners" (aka smokers, drinkers). It bothers me to no end that the religious right feels they have no responsibility and that all the "sinners" should carry the state's financial weight.

Raising taxes for smokers/drinkers and nobody else is just as inappropriate as raising taxes for African-Americans and nobody else, or raising taxes for men only, or raising taxes only for people who own more than 1 acre of land. Just because I smoke Camels and drink Bud doesn't mean I should have to finance the state. Sin taxes are discriminatory.

Some of your state government representatives smoke, and some if not all of them enjoy a drink now and then. If you're living in a state that's considering raising "sin" taxes (since when is it the government's business to tax or regulate "sins" and believe me the government representatives call them "sin taxes" just like anyone else) please write your representatives - both your state legislature and your representatives to US Congress - and explain your distaste. Quote the previous paragraph in your letter.

Please.

Thanks,

Shaun

Re:or not

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how taxes always work. You pay for a lot of stuff you don't want, need, use or care about.

Sin tax error

[sulli]

yah, it's a bad deal. is this for the new twins' stadium, which I thought wasn't a done deal yet? or the vikings?

AOL

[YanceyAI]

Lobbyists from America Online and other Internet giants fought the bill, saying state-by-state regulation of the Internet is unwieldy.

Unwieldy for whom? TRANSLATION:

Wait! If you start this sort of legislation, other states may follow suit, and then we'll have to be held accountable for our actions.

Re:AOL

[JJ22]

As someone who works in data privacy for a large corporation, I can say that "unwieldy" is a good word. Slashdotters should understand the need for good consistent standards. Respecting user privacy will be that much more difficult with 50 different standards to conform to. Yes, you say, but just adapt to meet the highest standard. Well, monitoring federal legislation takes time enough, keeping up with 50 different standards to make sure that you don't violate a portion of a single state's privacy law will add cost to *any* company's legal dept.

While we're not in favor of any of the particular federal bills being developed now (they really aren't well thought out from a consumer or corporate standpoint), we would rather see overriding federal legislation than have to keep up with a million local laws.

Yes, die! In committee!

[[e-mail]]

Bah, all you need is Saturday morning television [apocalypse.org] to know how a bill becomes a law.

no, no, no

[Khopesh]

they missed the most vital requirement needed:
require opt-IN, not opt-out.

my favorite piece of spam is the one that comes only once:
You have been selected for regular weekly mailings of penile enlargement accessory news. If you do not want to receive these announcements, do nothing and this will be the last time we will contact you. In order to receive our penile enlargement newsletters, you must reply to the following address: [e-mail]

it's still unsolicited, but hey, here's a step in the right direction and it makes businesses much more legitimate in my book. this way, the small number of people who DO want this kind of mail will still get it. anybody else will get a few spams initially and will then fall off spammers' radar.

Re:no, no, no

[PCM2]

Seems like it would be pretty hard to make a guarantee like "this will be the last time we will contact you."

Unlike dead-tree junk mail, where marketers often rent the mailing lists for one-time use only, a lot of spammers seem to get their addresses either from scraping Web sites or from CD-ROMs bought by mail order. To be absolutely sure that your address never appeared twice across all their sources, they would have to keep a "did not respond" database, and check it against every email address they're about to send spam to.

Now how many companies do you think will actually do such a thing? Even if it seemed technically realistic, how many marketers are going to be willing to say "I will never contact this address again, ever, for any reason, even for some purpose unrelated to the last email I sent them, at which time they did not opt in"?

3rd parties, and the 2nd part of the bill

[teambpsi]

As an ISP in Minnesota, I seriously wonder about the slippery slope of legalese like "joint-venture" which isn't technically a "third-party". Don't get me wrong, I'm a privacy freak, and QWEST deserves worse...

The second part of the bill is frankly not feasible -- from a forced implementation standpoint:

"A second part of the bill follows the lead of other states that have adopted rules to try to control unwanted e-mail. It would require companies sending unsolicited advertisements to include the letters "ADV" in the subject line of e-mails -- "ADV-ADULT" for material of a sexual nature -- to make it easier to filter out."

And what mechanism is in place to:

a. police it?
b. enforce it?
c. litigate it? and at who's expense?

and lets talk jurisdiction here....or lets not ;)

Re:3rd parties, and the 2nd part of the bill

[Asicath]

Ventura will personaly wrestle down spammers who dont use the ADV.

What if i want to email a friend in ADVance about the ADVenture Im about to go on?

As a small ISP in minnesota, Im unhappy about this law getting passed. Mainly because I wont be able to trade my subscriber list with porno sites for free access. Other luxery items that I will no longer be able to get for free:
Penis enlargers
health shake mixes
cyber university diplomas
crappy domain names like .tv and .poo