Just read an article on Fox Business about California's Supreme Court ruling that stores cannot ask for a zip code.  This supposedly infringes on consumer rights.  Apparently a dozen other states have similar laws in place, but rarely do people know about this.  Personally, I don't see the problem.  Giving my zip code isn't giving my address.  It gives the merchant a way to verify my identity with a piece of information that pinpoints my home to somewhere within a random geographic area covering many square miles.

I have been to several gas stations where you are asked to enter your zip code when you pay at the pump.  Is this included in this ruling?  If so, I foresee further problems for average Americans in obtaining a credit card and higher prices for all of us.  I know from when my wife worked for a credit card company that the first thing a thief does with newly obtained credit cards is to go and try to pump gas.  They do that because at most stations you just swipe the card and pump once it authorizes the card.  It's a good way for them to test to see if the card is still valid or if the owner has already cancelled it.  When the pumps ask for your zip code, they are using a system called Address Verification System (AVS) that checks to make sure the zip code is correct before it will authorize the purchase.  The point of the system is to curb fraudulent transactions, particularly in "card not present" situations where it is impossible to check for another form of identification. Perhaps in California, where it is now illegal to even ask for a zip code, if this applies to gas stations as well, they should just disable their pay at the pump and force everyone to walk inside and show ID before they pump.  Maybe then some people would begin to understand that there is a cost to conveniences such as paying with credit/debit as opposed to carrying cash or to pay at the pump without having to walk 40 feet to the cashier.

The article didn't state whether websites were exempt from this.  I am assuming so because if you order from a catalog they sort of need the zip code to send your merchandise to you.  As a web merchant for nearly 13 years, I do require a correct zip code.  As part of the terms of service that my customers must agree to, they must provide correct contact information (address, phone number, and email) and they must keep it updated accordingly - regardless of method of payment.  I run all transactions through AVS to ensure a lower level of fraud.  And in the hosting industry that is critical.  Over the past five years, more than half of all my new signups have been with fraudulent (stolen) cards.  A significant difference is that I am selling an ongoing service whereas most stores are performing as-needed transactions.  But this system was never intended for clerks to ask for a zip code.  It was created for MOTO (mail order/telephone order) merchants to protect themselves against fraud and was expanded first to web merchants and then to "unattended card present" transactions (like pay at the pump where you have the card but there is no clerk to verify your identity). AVS is not a new technology - I have used it in my business since the very beginning.

I suppose looking at it this way, stores have no business asking for your zip code.  But this article makes it sound like any business requiring a zip code is evil.  I think it should be made clear that there are certain circumstances where it is definitely in the consumer's best interest to give their zip code.  And while I can see stores being prohibited from asking for this because they can check an ID, I don't think laws preventing zip code checks should apply to unattended transactions (gas pumps) or to card not present merchants (mail order, phone order, web order).  If these laws do apply to these last two groups, then I would look for fraudulent transactions to skyrocket.  If that happens, look for prices of everything - especially gas - to also skyrocket because the merchants will be the ones footing the bill for the fraudulent purchases.  Credit and debit cards are a convenience.  Convenience comes at a cost.

The U.S. government shut down Megaupload.com today for copyright infringement and charged several people with that crime.  In response, the hacking group "Anonymous" attacked DOJ, Universal Music, and entertainment trade group websites.

These people must be bigger idiots than I previously gave them credit for.  Here we are fighting a massive battle against SOPA and PIPA, finally starting to gain some ground.  And then this group attacks legitimate websites because the government legally took down a major piracy contributor.  We should be cheering the Feds' actions.  Their ability to take care of this without the teeth of SOPA/PIPA should be another reason for Congress to abandon this horrible legislation - because it isn't needed.  Okay, I grant you, this was only legal because it was against a domestic website.  But at the very least, this should push for SOPA to become what it should have been in the first place - a way to block foreign websites allowing piracy.  My main point here is that hacking these sites because a piracy website was taken down can only help the cause of MPAA and RIAA in their fight for SOPA.

Earlier Saturday, the White House stated in a blog posting that while they are in favor of legislation preventing piracy, any effort to combat online piracy "must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."  The MPAA released a response to that tonight and a portion of it infuriates me.

I will restate, for the record, that I am strongly against piracy and copyright infringement.  I have been a victim of this myself in the past (finding text and images from my websites on other sites without my permission).  I do not approve of this and certainly do not practice it.  Maybe that is why I take such offense to a portion of the statement released by the Motion Picture Association of America.  In part, they stated "For too long in this debate, those that seek to preserve and profit from the status quo have moved to obstruct reasonable legislation."  Now I know that they are not saying that everyone who is fighting them on this is profiting from piracy.  But the statement did make me feel like I was being lumped in with them.  I guess I feel this way because they fail to acknowledge that anyone besides them could have a reasonable argument.

MPAA's statement talks about American jobs being "threatened by thieves from foreign-based rogue websites."  If that is the case, then write a law that goes after THEM!  As written, the law is so vague that if I post a picture of my daughter standing in front of my movie collection, the studios could come after me because their movie cases show up on my website.  And as written, they could shut down my website just by accusing me of infringement!  On a commercial site, that could cost a lot of money!  Why would they come after me in that situation?  No idea and I'm not saying they would.  But should they really be allowed to do that?  And should they be allowed to punish me by having my site turned off just because they are accusing me?  I thought the punishment usually came after the conviction!  And in the letter that I sent to my customers a few days ago asking them to read up on this and encourage their elected officials to vote one way or the other, I gave an example of posting a video of my daughter dancing to the music from Disney's Mulan.  Something I didn't put in the letter was that under the law I could be shut down and fined for posting that video on my website.  But if I were to set up a screen and projector in my driveway for all the neighborhood to see, that would be perfectly legal!

They want to talk about lost American jobs.  Let's talk about it!  Let's talk about the thousands and thousands of jobs lost because investors won't touch tech companies that may be affected by a vague, overreaching law like this.  Let's talk about foreign-based tech companies thriving because the U.S. government censors can't reach them.  Let's talk about foreign-based search engines taking away market share and jobs from Google, Bing, and Yahoo because they can still catalog the full Internet.  After all, once the government is able to start censoring some things out of our search engines, how long will it be before they get their claws on more?  Think it wouldn't happen?  Recheck your history books...

Finally, a comment on a response from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  In their response, they described SOPA and PIPA as "narrowly tailored bills designed to target the worst of the worst offenders."  Narrowly tailored?  Have they even read the bills?  That statement is so ridiculous that it doesn't really deserve any further response.

Perhaps we need to start a boycott of all MPAA business (theaters, DVD sales, merchandise sales) and U.S. Chamber of Commerce members (just don't confuse them with your local chamber of commerce).

Now that I'm all worked up, I should try and get some sleep.

Dear Customer,

You are receiving this as a customer of Wright Web Works.  This email is intended primarily for our customers based in the United States.

I have a general rule of avoiding political discussions in business.  However, there is currently legislation passing through Washington that concerns many website owners, including many of you, our valued customers.  For this reason, I have decided that we should make you aware of this.  I am certain that I wouldn’t be able to mask my feelings on this if I tried, so I ask that you please do a little research on this, form your own opinion, and take appropriate action.

This legislation, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA), are both well intended, but due to their vague and poorly written language could cause massive disruption of the Internet.  Particularly if you run forums, maintain a blog, or post pictures or videos on any website, this legislation should be of concern to you.

As written, a U.S. Attorney, using only an accusation of infringement would be able to obtain a court order effectively shutting down your website.  The order would add your domain name to a blocklist that U.S.-based Internet Service Providers will be required to check prior to fulfilling any website request.  In other words, if your domain name is added to this blocklist anyone in the United States that enters your domain name into their web browser will not see your site, but instead will read that your site has been blocked due to a legal investigation of your site’s content.  In addition, if you take payments or donations on your site, merchant providers (including banks, PayPal, etc.) would be barred from doing business with you.  Also, advertising services would be barred from advertising your site and search engines would not be allowed to provide any links to your site.  This could all legally happen just because you are accused.  Convictions would result in fines and/or jail time.

Let me be clear.  I am strongly against piracy and copyright infringement.  I have personally had work used without my permission.  I did not appreciate it and will not purposely cause that pain or financial loss for others.  However, as this legislation is currently written there are few limits or specifics about what is covered.  The few specifics that are mentioned talk only about who will be held liable (the site owner) and what will be done to them (the above consequences, plus jail time and/or large fines).

To give an example, I have a video of my 3-year-old daughter dancing to the closing music from Disney’s Mulan.  If I were to post that video on my personal blog, Disney could file a complaint with a U.S. Attorney who would then seek a court order blocking my website.  If I posted that video on Facebook, the same could happen to Facebook – and they would be liable for my posting, not me!  Another example would be a recording of a church service.  If a copyrighted work is performed during the service or played in the background before or after the service – even in the background – the publishers of the songs heard could accuse you of infringement based on that.  I’m not saying they would do that, but under the law they could, which opens the potential for abuse of this law by some companies to silence their opponents or squash their competition.

If enacted, I believe that this law will restrict free speech online, scare investors away from Internet companies, and possibly cost the United States tax revenue if companies like Facebook or PayPal opt to move their businesses overseas to escape the government’s reach with these laws.  To make matters worse, I do not believe that this law would stop the problem.  It would only take a few hours for someone to set up their website under a new identity with the same infringing content.

As I said before, please research this for yourself and form your own opinion.  If you feel strongly one way or the other, contact your members of Congress and let them know your thoughts.

Interesting links on this subject:
http://fightforthefuture.org/pipa/
http://blog.servint.net/2011/12/16/what-is-sopa-and-pipa/
http://venturebeat.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/sopainternet.png
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/toms-hardware-sopa-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act-PROTECT-IP-Senate,14393.html

 

Thank you for your time and as always, thanks for choosing Wright Web Works as your hosting provider!

Sincerely,

Mark Wright

Original post blogged on b2evolution.