April 23, 2009
Kim Jaske
Online Privacy Coordinator
Gannett Law Department
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA 22107
Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1798.83, also known as the "Shine The Light" law, I am requesting my once-a-year, free report, available to Gannett Co. Inc. customers who are California residents, such report containing information about the personal information, (if any) that Gannett disclosed to third parties for direct marketing purposes in the preceding calendar year.
If applicable, this information would include a list of the categories of personal information that was shared and the names and addresses of all third parties with which Gannett shared information in the immediately preceding calendar year.
I am a California resident, and herewith submit my request in writing.
Due to the urgency of the matter in Wausau, Wis., I'm requesting an expedited response.
Yours,
Jim Hopkins
Friday, April 24, 2009
6 comments:
Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If they said no Jim, they are you really to play courts games?
ReplyDeleteIf they say "no" they will be acting in a way that is contrary to how most of their newspapers operate. When a newsrooms wants public documents they get 'em come hell or high water. If Gannett chooses to not release these documents, they will be just as bad as the public officials they sue who refuse to release documents.
ReplyDeletePlus it seems to me if they keep refusing to share information (PR, etc.) that eventually some crafty government-hired attorney might come along and find a way to actually use their lack of transparency against them.
If they respond, I'll double my contribution this quarter to $10. That's my bet.
ReplyDeleteJim: You also have the makings of a nice Vanity Fair or Wired magazine story here. I haven't seen much press on that Calif. statute.
AWESOME. Keep at it.
ReplyDeleteMight be better to cc: an attorney... or better yet, have him write the letter. They're not going to respond.
ReplyDeleteWhile I suspect that Jim will get his information, this information is NOT considered public in the same way that government documents are.
ReplyDeleteStop trying to draw a parallel between public governments and private corporations.
Gannett has no responsibility to release anything except where explicitly required to do so by law (such as this case).
Conversely, a public entity is required to release ALL information except when explicitly prohibited by law (i.e. classified information, etc...)