I am sending the following letter today, via the U.S. Postal Service.
May 26, 2010
Kimberly B. Jaske
Administrator/Client Services
7950 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, Va. 22107
Kimberly:
Thank you for your letter, dated May 24, 2010. You responded to my April 21 written request for information under California's "Shine the Light" law, Civil Code Section 1798.83.
You wrote: "We've reviewed our records and it does not appear that we have a business relationship with you as the California statute defines that term. If we've overlooked something here, Jim, please let us know which unit you have a business relationship with so that we can act upon your request."
Kimberly, as you no doubt know, 1798.83 subdivision (e), paragraph (5) says:
"Established business relationship" means a relationship formed by a voluntary, two-way communication between a business and a customer, with or without an exchange of consideration, for the purpose of purchasing, renting, or leasing real or personal property, or any interest therein, or obtaining a product or service from the business, if the relationship is ongoing and has not been expressly terminated by the business or the customer, or if the relationship is not ongoing, but is solely established by the purchase, rental, or lease of real or personal property from a business, or the purchase of a product or service, and no more than 18 months have elapsed from the date of the purchase, rental, or lease.
In that regard, I am a customer of Gannett's USA Today, in its print and digital forms. I receive USA Today with and without an exchange of consideration, i.e.: my paying the suggested retail price of $1. USA Today provides me a product and an on-demand service that includes delivery of news and other information. This business relationship is ongoing, and included the calendar year 2009.
I trust this answers your question, and look forward to your reply.
Jim Hopkins
Publisher and Editor
Gannett Blog
584 Castro St., No. 823
San Francisco, CA 94114-2594
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
9 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)
What a stall technique. She knows better than this. This response is a complete outrage. If there is nothing to hide, send the information. On your next correspondence, copy the attorney general. I understand that he isn't such a fan of the media.
ReplyDeleteBetter yet, send him a copy of your original letter, her reply, and your reply. Send it certified mail. Copy your state representative in Sacramento as well.
Privacy issues are a big deal in the news. This topic would might get some traction, except not in traditional print because they're all doing it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, maybe the SF Chronicle would like a piece of the action... as a sort of volley back on Gannett for pushing The Bold Italic in its backyard.
The law requires that Corporate respond within 30 days. It met that time requirement -- but just barely.
ReplyDeleteIt may be that this is, indeed, a stalling tactic. That would be the case if Corporate hasn't already compiled what could be a voluminous report required by the law.
Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if this is the first time Gannett has received one of these requests, so it may not have the information readily at hand.
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin famously asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”
ReplyDeleteJim, how many lawyers do you have? 'Cause we know the other side is well equipped.
4:42 pm: California Attorney General Jerry Brown, plus U.S. Sens. Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco all pack a mean left punch.
ReplyDeleteBonus points: Brown is running for governor in November, so ought to show concern about online privacy issues in his likely match against the likely GOP nominee: former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Also, Feinstein has showed particular concern about online security breaches, which this state law covers.
Good for you, Jim, to stay on this. Common sense tells us the response was composed for Jaske by one of the corporate lawyers.
ReplyDeleteAren't you also a customer of bolditalic.com, which was developed for Gannett and is right there in San Francisco? http://pivotallabs.com/users/ian/blog/articles/1032-the-bold-italic-launches
ReplyDeletehttp://bolditalic.com
That is true, 9:08 pm. I'm also a customer of dozens of other Gannett newspapers and TV stations via their websites. In my response to Jaske's letter, however, I was trying to keep things simple, by focusing on one business unit: USAT.
ReplyDeleteNow this sucks big time. I would think anyone who agrees to the terms of service on any site enters into a business relationship by doing so. Does this mean readers don't have to really follow TOS since Gannett does not consider it a business relationship? Jim. I sure hope you stay on this one.
ReplyDelete