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.
The case is about a women buying stuff at Williams Sonoma what does that have to do with filling out a credit application?A signed credit application IS a contract.
Last edited by danarhea; 02-13-11 at 10:39 PM.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
Stay away from interpretations of the law.
From the blog cited in the OP.
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...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.”
Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
Jon Huntsman for President