North Dakotans to Vote on Bank Privacy Rules
As part of a general overhaul of banking laws in 1999, Congress allowed financial institutions to share data without obtaining permission. That law did allow states to impose stricter rules. A handful of states, including Vermont, Alaska and Illinois, have retained strict rules, known as opt-in.

In a debate here last week, Charlene Nelson, head of the Constitution Party and a group favoring the stricter rules, Protect Our Privacy, made the emotional case for tighter privacy. "If you believe, as I do, that your private information belongs to you, that it is your private property and you have a right to protect it without taking extraordinary measures," she said, "then vote no."

Privacy advocates in Washington see Tuesday's vote as very important. The A.C.L.U. gave $25,000 this week to help the campaign for stricter privacy rules. Evan Hendricks, editor of the newsletter Privacy Times, said: "It's huge. It's the first time Americans have had a chance to vote" on the issue. If the "no" side wins, he said, "I think it's going to lead to petition drives in other states."

Paula Bruening of the Center for Democracy and Technology said North Dakota was a leader in an effort spurred by the perception that the federal law "didn't address consumer concerns adequately."

Under the basic federal privacy protections in place in most states, financial institutions send out descriptions of their privacy policies annually and provide customers an opportunity to opt out of having their information shared.

Since the majority of those notices are ignored by customers, the default position, which allows information sharing here and in most states, dominates. As Heidi Heitkamp, a Democratic former attorney general whom Mr. Hoeven defeated in 2000, asked, "Why should every person in North Dakota have to watch their mail with an incredible diligence to protect their privacy rights?"
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/10/national/10PRIV.html