Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
22. Doesn't anyone goes to CONGRESS to see what is being passed?
Thu Dec 20, 2012, 09:54 PM
Dec 2012

The law as PRESENTLY WRITTEN is a follows:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2710

(b) Video Tape Rental and Sale Records.—
(1) A video tape service provider who knowingly discloses, to any person, personally identifiable information concerning any consumer of such provider shall be liable to the aggrieved person for the relief provided in subsection (d).
(2) A video tape service provider may disclose personally identifiable information concerning any consumer—
(A) to the consumer;
(B) to any person with the informed, written consent of the consumer given at the time the disclosure is sought;
.


THis is the bill that would CHANGE the law:

H.R.6671 -- Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act of 2012 (Engrossed in House [Passed House] - EH)

HR 6671 EH

112th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 6671

AN ACT
To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Video Privacy Protection Act Amendments Act of 2012'.
SEC. 2. VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT.

Section 2710(b)(2) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting the following:
`(B) to any person with the informed, written consent (including through an electronic means using the Internet) of the consumer that--
`(i) is in a form distinct and separate from any form setting forth other legal or financial obligations of the consumer;
`(ii) at the election of the consumer--
`(I) is given at the time the disclosure is sought; or
`(II) is given in advance for a set period of time, not to exceed 2 years or until consent is withdrawn by the consumer, whichever is sooner; and
`(iii) the video tape service provider has provided an opportunity, in a clear and conspicuous manner, for the consumer to withdraw on a case-by-case basis or to withdraw from ongoing disclosures, at the consumer's election;'.

Passed the House of Representatives December 18, 2012.

Attest:

Clerk.

112th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 6671

AN ACT
To amend section 2710 of title 18, United States Code, to clarify that a video tape service provider may obtain a consumer's informed, written consent on an ongoing basis and that consent may be obtained through the Internet.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:2:./temp/~bd4W8n::|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112|

Actual text:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:1:./temp/~c112h7e2j8::
I'm not sure this is bad thesquanderer Dec 2012 #1
HOWEVER, every single service I've ever seen makes you opt-out groundloop Dec 2012 #2
That was in the 1988 law aggiesal Dec 2012 #3
Please READ. It says right in the quotes in red that the amendment FORBIDS companies from kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #7
Again the 1988 law "FORBIDS ..." aggiesal Dec 2012 #8
You have misread it thesquanderer Dec 2012 #11
As stated above, giving consent is a tricky one. Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #17
I agree, Opt-Out should be the default... for pretty much everything! (nt) thesquanderer Dec 2012 #18
So long Netflix. It's been good to know ya. Speck Tater Dec 2012 #4
f*** Skittles Dec 2012 #5
Good god - we WANT the amendment passed. It FORBIDS movie rental companies from doing this. kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #6
The 1988 law "... FORBIDS ..." aggiesal Dec 2012 #9
It's a crappily phrased article. Tab Dec 2012 #13
Not sure you are reading it right either kracer20 Dec 2012 #10
This message was self-deleted by its author thesquanderer Dec 2012 #12
It's a dangling clause. caseymoz Dec 2012 #14
Yes, the sentence is ambiguous as you describe, thesquanderer Dec 2012 #15
The 1988 law is what forbids disclosure. blackspade Dec 2012 #16
This message was self-deleted by its author KoKo Dec 2012 #19
To people having problems with the way this article is written, Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #20
You want to stop things like this? Flatpicker Dec 2012 #21
Doesn't anyone goes to CONGRESS to see what is being passed? happyslug Dec 2012 #22
Crap!! im1013 Dec 2012 #23
Books are better anyway. nt rrneck Dec 2012 #24
It would be a good thing Rain Mcloud Dec 2012 #25
Oh no, everybody will know I have a secret affinity for French romantic comedies high density Dec 2012 #26
While I'm in no way ashamed of the things I've watched Fearless Dec 2012 #27
The Republicans passed this in the house... why do people think this is such a good thing? Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Dec 2012 #28
Not on a social networking site AldoLeopold Dec 2012 #29
More GOP Hypocricy Octafish Dec 2012 #30
I'm so glad... skypilot Dec 2012 #31
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Netflix Blacks Out the Re...»Reply #22