Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

  1. #11
    Sage
    Barbbtx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    W'Ford TX
    Last Seen
    11-10-12 @ 08:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    Being in Retail Management I deal with this **** regularly. Its mindboggling sometimes how so many people think its easier to bitch to the state than to just choose another businesses to shop at. It's not just name and address policies like these it's all sorts of issues; gambling, the drug war, gay marriage (somewhat), the entertainment industry etc. One excuse I got from someone that it was Big Brother. Now I work for a private company, not the government (I view government pay as poison). Big Brother is a government concept, not a private company because with a private business you can walk away and take your business elsewhere, not so easy with the state.

    A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private - Kashmir Hill - The Not-So Private Parts - Forbes

    I think by giving my zip at check-out, is how I've received good coupons before.
    Maybe I should sue?
    Catawa is my favorite bleeding heart liberal.
    1/27/12

  2. #12
    Sage
    CriticalThought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    18,125

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    1) I just looked in a Houston white pages. Everybody who is listed has his or her address, along with zip code, there too. What's so private about a zip code? If it was a SS number, that would be different, but it's just a friggin' zip code.
    I'm unlisted. Furthermore, anybody could use my credit card at a gas pump if they have the zip code of my mailing address.

  3. #13
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    This ruling is addressing a real problem with a bad solution. The zipcode is irrelevant, the key issue is businesses going around selling your information to others. The proper solution would be to prevent anyone from selling your data to anyone unless given explicit authorization in a contract.

  4. #14
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    This ruling is addressing a real problem with a bad solution. The zipcode is irrelevant, the key issue is businesses going around selling your information to others. The proper solution would be to prevent anyone from selling your data to anyone unless given explicit authorization in a contract.
    A signed credit application IS a contract.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  5. #15
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    A signed credit application IS a contract.
    The case is about a women buying stuff at Williams Sonoma what does that have to do with filling out a credit application?

  6. #16
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:27 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,746

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by rathi View Post
    The case is about a women buying stuff at Williams Sonoma what does that have to do with filling out a credit application?
    Because she got it on credit. To get the credit card, she had to fill out an application. A signed application for credit IS, under the law, a contract. If it is disclosed on the signed application (now a contract), as required by law, that information about you may be given to third parties, there is not a thing she can do. Like I said before, this decision will be reversed.
    Last edited by danarhea; 02-13-11 at 11:39 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #17
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Undisclosed
    Last Seen
    03-18-13 @ 02:59 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,544

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Stay away from interpretations of the law.

  8. #18
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Because she got it on credit. To get the credit card, she had to fill out an application. A signed application for credit IS, under the law, a contract. If it is disclosed on the signed application (now a contract), as required by law, that information about you may be given to third parties, there is not a thing she can do. Like I said before, this decision will be reversed.
    I don't see any indication that this was her applying for a credit card. I don't know how many places where you can apply for a credit card at the checkout.

    From the blog cited in the OP.

    California resident Jessica Pineda sued Williams Sonoma in 2008 for invasion of privacy and violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act, after she was asked to hand over her zip code in one of their San Mateo stores. She alleged that, with her name, credit card number and zip code, the store was able to track down her home address and then use that to market to her and to sell her info to other businesses. A trial court and appeals court disagreed with her, but the California Supreme Court issued its decision yesterday saying, yes, a zip code is “personally identifiable information.”
    What the blog does NOT make clear is the context in which she was being asked her zip code. If it was at the checkout while making a purchase, then there is no reason for requiring a zip code. A retailer may ask (in such an instance) but the customer may refuse...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  9. #19
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Ft. Worth, TX
    Last Seen
    10-27-11 @ 08:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    132

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Perhaps I am mistaken but isn't it a good thing that the government is trying to protect your private information?
    Agreed, but I also like the idea of telling talking to the manager and telling him/her in a polite way why they can GFT and that I'll be taking my business elsewhere unless they drop the requirement. I'd also report it to the credit card company.

  10. #20
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,613
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: A Ridiculous California Court Ruling: Zip Codes are Private

    Quote Originally Posted by chevydriver1123 View Post
    The thing is, that you dont have to do business with a particular retailer if you dont agree with its policies. This is government meddling in private affairs.
    In California it's not so simple to just go somewhere else, because virtually every business in California does it. It is an invasion of privacy, personal information that the retailer has no right to. I agree with the court ruling.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •