Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam The Almighty Buck

Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy 249

Posted by michael from the surprise-surprise dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy details the tactics of retailers and marketers to sell customer data. Examples include promising not to sell consumer data, but then 'renting' the data, and the use of shopping cart software with different privacy policies than the merchant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy More

Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy

Comments Filter:

  • Privacy and such... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mgcsinc ( 681597 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:44PM (#6343094)
    The biggest problem with internet privacy issues in the past has been the lack of ability to track sources of information for advertisers - one had no idea whether advertiser XYZ got your address from Amazon.com or Bobscomputers.biz. Although there are several new pay and free e-mail systems now for identifying individual sources, such systems are hardly ubiquitous and none exist as-yet for truly identifying sources of telephone numbers, snail-mail addresses, and other sensitive personal information. For this reason, consumers often find it extremely difficult to police these firms and take their business elsewhere and the first alternative to self- and consumer-policing to come to mind is actual legal enforcement with actual investigative action against firms - something beyond the consumer-helping-consumer nature of the Better Business Bureau. It is here that the complaint about lack of privacy in online transactions, while very valid, is in part hypocritical coming from the Slashdot community, one which - with the interests of protecting the freedom of the internet and keeping any one nation from declaring some kind of jurisdiction over the Internet - is always mixed in its views of governmental 'net policing. Perhaps an easy compromise can be found in this case, or maybe an entirely new approach must be taken altogether...

    • Re:Privacy and such... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by warpath ( 19103 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:49PM (#6343160) Homepage Journal
      The biggest problem with internet privacy issues in the past has been the lack of ability to track sources of information for advertisers - one had no idea whether advertiser XYZ got your address from Amazon.com or Bobscomputers.biz.
      I have my own domain name. When I buy from bn.com, I use "bn@mydomain.com" and when I buy from Amazon, I use "amazon@mydomain.com". It's not a perfect system, by any means, but it does allow me a little bit of tracking. If I get spam for "Bobscomputers@mydomain.com", then Bobscomputers.biz is likely the culprit.

      • Re:Privacy and such... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fapestniegd ( 34586 ) <james AT jameswhite DOT org> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:53PM (#6343223) Homepage
        You might also try username+foo@domain.com sendmail lets you have as many +bar accounts as you want.

        I use +comdex and +networld on the end of my username so I can filter the stuff I have to register for. Not everything supports it (I'm not sure about exchange) so YMMV.
      • same here. I also sometimes tag my snail-mail address:

        Morcheeba
        Dept. SD
        123 street
        City, state zip

        I also do it with my telephone number. Example:

        (212) 752-7436

        That spells out sla-shdo; good enough for me to recogonize. Funny, though, I don't get many unsolicited calls to my masked phone numbers...
        • Well .. that works for awhile, but not long.

          Part of the business is not just "selling" lists, but cleaning them. Generally this is done by taking company XYZ's list and matching it against something like the Experian Data. So what is the wrong phone number would probably get purged out and replaced with the working one.

          Even mispelling your name in hopes to throw things off is not effective. Changed zip codes, weird street names, etc, generally all get caught in a weighed score. Using Soundex and NYSII

      • Re:Privacy and such... (Score:4, Informative)

        by fireboy1919 ( 257783 ) <rustypNO@SPAMfreeshell.org> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:02PM (#6343337) Homepage Journal
        Yeah that works. I have my own country, so when I buy from bn, I make a street named "bn street" and have them send mail there, or "amazon way," etc. If I get junk mail at bobscomputers ave, then bobscomputers.biz is likely the culprit.

        Actually, I'm lying a lot.

        As enlightened as your idea may be, warpath, it is illegal for most users to run their own mailservers with their ISP setup. Also, as noted above, it doesn't really apply to people who give out your physical address when they shouldn't.

        We are not completely without alternatives, though. [spamgourmet.com]

        Perhaps to REALLY screw them up, we should invoke some kind of e-mail trading system, so that demographics identification is no longer effective and they leave us alone.
        • Most people with webhosting through a hosting company can achieve this though.

          My domain names are hosted with an external company, I have one POP3 box which is where all my mail goes, and unlimited forwarding addresses at my domain name.

        • its not illegal to run mailservers on domains at webhosts though. thats what the parent was speaking of.

          kind of like my domain.. i do the same.. exact.. thing!

          you can e-mail me at:

          fireboy1919.at.hooklinesinker.org

      • Spam Gourmet - Trackable disposable email address (Score:4, Informative)

        by Flamesplash ( 469287 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:15PM (#6343465) Homepage Journal
        Why not just use Spam Gourmet [spamgourmet.com]? It allows you to make disposable email addresses that forward to your main address. The addresses are unique based on a key word which helps you know where your spam came from.
      • One year when I took the SAT I accidentally bubbled in my name incorrectly by filling in a "D" instead of a "C". I didn't realize this until I got my results back.

        The interesting part is the College Board (the guys who run the SATs) sell student's addresses to colleges so the colleges can send the students brochures, pamphlets, etc. It was fun to "track" where my address had been sold to due to the misspelling of my name "Dhris" on a lot of the material I received.
      • I've sometimes done that exact thing... but I stopped. With SpamAssassin and RBL checking, I get very little spam nowadays anyway. Plus I'm not sure what you can really do if you find out "BobsComputers" gave out your info. Is it really worth your time pursuing companies that gave away your email address?

      • Re:Privacy and such... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:38PM (#6343685)
        I do exactly the same thing (with the user+mailbox@example.com format) and have found at least two otherwise reputable places selling my address. In both cases, when I confronted them, they strenuously denied ever selling my address to spammers (one going so far as to suggest that I was using the same obviously unique address elsewhere, or that a spammer had hacked into my system and sifted through my data looking for e-mail addresses to spam).

        Clearly they leaked the address somehow. But I have to consider the possibility that one of their employees sold it on the side, or that their systems were compromised. In both cases, I presented these as the only likely scenarios and told them if they weren't going to take measures to prevent it, I would take my business elsewhere.

        In addition to this trick, I have a subdomain set up as a 'trap' for spam, and automatically generate e-mail addresses using keywords, encoded IP addresses and date/time stamps to embed within web pages. Spam harvesters pick them up without a significant risk of someone legitimate trying to use one to contact me. With enough information in the e-mail address, you can go back and see exactly who harvested the address. ISPs frequently don't see these types of complaints, and if you're lucky, the spammer is doing the harvesting on a more persistent Internet account and not his throw-away spam injection account. (This is especially interesting for those Nigerian scams, since your local authorities have the ability to use that information to track the guy sending the e-mails by way of his harvesting.)

    • Re:Privacy and such... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:54PM (#6343237)

      No, the biggest problem is that 1) there are no laws against selling your personal information, 2) if businesses violate their own policies there is usually little or no recourse, 3) standard business philosophy is that if it isn't specifically illegal then it's fair game, and 4) many businesses will still do illegal things if they think they can get away with it (before getting busted or going out of business).
      • Perhaps there is no law, but the businesses pay in the end. Perhaps half of shoppers are now reluctant to shop online due to previous negative experiences, including distribution of their personal information.

        This has already happened to charities, which long ago shedded their decency and yielded to aggressive, outsourced, for-profit donation management. Now, as soon as you donate to one you are deluged with solicitations from others. Maybe their numbers spiked at the start, but now they wonder why giving

    • News (Score:3, Funny)

      by chundo ( 587998 )
      Whoever thinks this is news either has never worked for a web firm, or has never gotten to know their friendly marketing department.

      -j

  • And we in turn choose... (Score:5, Funny)

    by macshune ( 628296 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:45PM (#6343113) Journal
    Piracy over profit!

  • next up: (Score:4, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed ( 3706 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:46PM (#6343124)
    "People choose privacy over web firms"

    I'm _so_ glad I have my own domain, and can create and destroy email addresses willy-nilly. I haven't seen a piece of spam in about a year, now, and that's with_out_ any spam filtering methods at all.

    • Re:next up: (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:50PM (#6343173)
      How to make money with your own domain:

      1. create a ton of email addresses
      2. sell list of email address to spammers
      3. after a week or two, destroy the email addresses
      4. go to step 1

      • Re:next up: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Tumbleweed ( 3706 )
        Hmmm. I smell profit! I love the smell of profit in the morning.

        And one could just eliminate step 3, and set the mail server to auto-delete any email to those addresses, but not bounce, and just keep on going back to step 2.

        Ya know, I _do_ have a few unused domains laying around...

        "100% guaranteed real e-mail addresses, guaranteed no bounces! (or your blood money back)"

        It's a whole new marketing paradigm! Just think of the synergy, man, the _synergy_! I believe a quick ROI is possible here by leveraging
        • I used to work for a big corp, and buzzwords like that nearly made sense to me.

          For the past three years, I've been at much smaller companies, and I've also been doing a fair bit of martial arts training.

          All that to say that when you toss out phrases like targeting the "low-hanging fruit" in this vertical, it takes me a minute to realize that you're not talking about a kick to the groin.

          --
          • Ya know, I never heard anything like that in Tae Kwon Do, so I would never have thought of using them in that context.

            Still, getting spam IS rather like getting kicked in the nads...

            As for buzzwords like that, those are from my "forbidden words list" I made up while working at a web design firm a few years back. It was truly frightening how many times a day you'd hear every one of those at work. I distributed the list to the developers, and it was all we could do to keep from laughing out loud every time

  • Different policies between site and shopping cart? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:46PM (#6343131)
    If it's not already illegal, this should be, especially if there is no notice of any particular size informing the user that the change is present. If a shopping cart is linked from the primary site, such that the users of the primary site must use the shopping cart, the terms of service should propagate with it too. This could set some interesting legal precedents if it's explored.
    • The shopping cart is a tool the vendor uses to check out customers, if the polices change when using the tool of the vendor this is fraudulent. Even if notification is given its still unethical as some places have no customer service to call. and if they do they are obliged to extend any online deal to any phone sales if the customers disagrees with the change in policy. This is effectively a privacy bait and switch.
    • Actually the best terms I've seen have been ones that allow the site to share my information with partners, have an opt in for any unsolicited information, and *REQUIRE* any partner to have the same terms of service regarding the information.

      Perhaps we need a GPL privacy policy?
    • If it's not already illegal, this should be, especially if there is no notice of any particular size informing the user that the change is present. If a shopping cart is linked from the primary site, such that the users of the primary site must use the shopping cart, the terms of service should propagate with it too. This could set some interesting legal precedents if it's explored.

      I think you're right, having done one of those click-thru privacy contracts, it doesn't seem legal for them to claim you're u

    • Re:Different policies between site and shopping ca (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Otter ( 3800 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:05PM (#6343373) Journal
      Especially with small vendors, I bet it never even occurred to the people who run many of their sites that their shopping cart operator is collecting and selling information on their own. It's just a service they bought.

  • Duh...no joke (Score:5, Funny)

    by ACK!! ( 10229 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:47PM (#6343136) Journal
    What next?

    Businesses choose profit over customer safety?

    Businesses choose profit over employee safety?

    What about the obvious?

    Businesses choose profit over anything else!?!

    I am glad the Washington Post is on top of this. I doubt I would have ever figured this out on my own.

    • Businesses always choose profit over what they think they can get away with - legally or illegally...

      Regulations on this will almost always be circumvented as the company sees fit, as long as they think they can get away with it...

    • There's one thing other than profit that businesses choose over profit:
      MORE PROFIT!!!

    • Re:Duh...no joke (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IthnkImParanoid ( 410494 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:04PM (#6343351)
      I am glad the Washington Post is on top of this. I doubt I would have ever figured this out on my own.
      Newsflash:

      The Washington Post is not a geek publication. It is a publication intended for the masses. The news here on slashdot is not that businesses are choosing profit over privacy, because as you pointed out, everyone here already knows. The news is that a major publication just brought it to the attention of the general public. (Of course, other papers have already, so this is a semi-dupe :))

      Why is bringing this to the masses important? You mentioned profit over customer/employee safety. The masses demanded, and received, laws to establish safety guidelines so businesses couldn't completely sacrifice those things for profit. If privacy concerns are raised more vocally and more often, the masses may begin demanding privacy guidelines as well.
      • > Why is bringing this to the masses important? You mentioned profit over customer/employee safety. The masses demanded, and received, laws to establish safety guidelines so businesses couldn't completely sacrifice those things for profit. If privacy concerns are raised more vocally and more often, the masses may begin demanding privacy guidelines as well.

        No, it's more important than what you describe.

        For instance, if you're a vendor, even if your attitude is "Fuck the masses and their privac

      • The Washington Post is not a geek publication. It is a publication intended for the masses.

        You mean there isn't enough geeks to be considered apart of the mass? Thank God. Man cause if there were, there would be some sort of crazy online effect with the media publication's name used as the verb to describe the effect or something.

  • Will you sell this data? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    No.

    But they will rent it for a nice price.

    I think of the Cheshire Cat.

  • Fight spam... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by marcello_dl ( 667940 )
    ...don't buy anything advertised to you by spammers.

    • Re:Fight spam... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dark Lord Seth ( 584963 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:11PM (#6343426) Journal

      Actually, considering how business works and that they will only do PROFITABLE stuff, the most scary thing would be that spam ACTUALLY WORKS! It's hard to believe, but on this planet there are actually people who are willing to buy $1 viagra-knockoffs, have their mortages refinanced by an obscure company 2000+ miles away, are interested in teenage girls doing various uhm... procreational activities for "free" (amateur porn surfers; real men use http://www.thehun.com/ [thehun.com] and http://www.sublimedirectory.com/ [sublimedirectory.com] anyways) and have 300+ phds, degrees, titles, whatnot which aren't recognized ANYWHERE. The problem isn't the spammers that much, the problem is (as usual) stupid people.

      I mean, who the FUCK would believe an email from a no-name company, adressing you by your email adress, containing 200+ typos to evade spam filters, uses all-capital text and can be grossly offensive? (Despite popular opinion, I'm not really interested or charmed by a jpg featuring two (or more) south-american guys in a homoerotic position featuring a nice close up of some anal penetration. Remember I'm talking about guys here.)

  • Chris Reeve? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:49PM (#6343161)
    "Recently, for example, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation advertised that its list of donors, including postal addresses, was for rent"


    He gets free fetuses AND the ability to sell people's personal info! Come on!!!!
    • He gets free fetuses AND the ability to sell people's personal info! Come on!!!!

      And meanwhile your hard-working all American blue collar joe can't even *buy* a fetus on the open market, no matter how much he's willing to pay. Sheesh.

  • A bit off-topic (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fobbman ( 131816 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:49PM (#6343165) Homepage
    Thank you, anonymous submitter, for linking to the printer-friendly version. While the Post might get peeved for the loss of ad revenue, reading the story like this is much easier on the eyes.

  • Step 3 (Score:5, Funny)

    by Equuleus42 ( 723 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:50PM (#6343174) Homepage
    I don't know of too many companies that have the following business plan:

    1. Make product
    2. ...
    3. Privacy!

    All humor aside, I think it's time we just start over. We need an Internet2 (wait... already taken -- Internet3!) that only allows individuals and well-behaved companies onto it... Either that, or we could just move back to Gopher...

    • Re:Step 3 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Ugmo ( 36922 )
      We need an Internet2 (wait... already taken -- Internet3!) that only allows individuals and well-behaved companies onto it

      I know this was meant to be humorous, but couldn't a low bandwith, mostly text parallel net be formed?

      I would like a Fidonet type system. A lot of wireless where possible, piggy back on existing Internet via VPN otherwise. Encrypted traffic. New extended SMTP mail system that authenticates sender and recipient (No SPAM). No graphics necessary, saves bandwidth, keeps out advertiser

  • Hooked on Phonics alright (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:50PM (#6343179)
    To parents interested in buying the popular Hooked on Phonics learn-to-read programs, the company made a firm promise on its Web site: It would never sell or rent their personal information to other marketers. But that pledge was empty.

    The children are Hooked on Phonics, and now the parents are Hooked on Phony Emails.

  • need info (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:50PM (#6343183)
    I'll pay $5 for the name of that anonymous submitter.

  • Chris's Ex-boyfriends? (Score:4, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:50PM (#6343184) Homepage Journal
    "Some companies, like psycho ex-boyfriends, tend to see relationships where they don't exist," said Chris Murray, legislative counsel for Consumers Union.

    Why did he say psycho ex-boyfriends and not ex-girlfriends? Is Chris hinting at something here? Or am I drawing conclusions where they don't exist.

  • Let's face it, the Internet is just not private. The Internet was conceived in a semi-private environment, absolutely bereft of retail commercial incentive, when the primary concern was sharing information.

    I work in information privacy in health care. We are faced with the competing interests of sharing information and protecting confidences. It is a zero sum game between the two, to get one you have to give on the other.

    I shop quite a lot on the Internet, but I do it as a special user on my systems so that my e-mail address, browser caches and cookie stores are distinct from those I use when otherwise communicating with people for non-commercial endeavors. I always lie about my gender, income, region and interests to web forms seeking demographic information. I use a special
    credit card for Internet purchases which always go to my work address.

    Does this give me absolute privacy? No, but it keeps me from being low-hanging fruit. I realize not everyone has the opportunities I do, but there are some things anyone can do.

    We aren't entirely powerless in this game. Like all other technological challenges, you just have to keep ahead and don't let your predilection for convenience and free stuff lead you into stupid disclosures.
    • I shop quite a lot on the Internet, but I do it as a special user on my systems so that my e-mail address, browser caches and cookie stores are distinct from those I use when otherwise communicating with people for non-commercial endeavors.

      Using an e-mail account that is specifically for online purchases so that it's separate from all other communications does sound like a good idea and one that's similar to what I often do if I want privacy. The e-mail account then becomes a honeypot for spam, and then

  • Fun Experiment ... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <<kt.celce> <ta> <eb>> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:53PM (#6343216) Homepage Journal
    Okay this requires you to have your own domain name (at least it makes it easier).

    When you sign up for a service or whatever takes your email, use the webaddress of the site as the mailbox (EX. for /. www.slashdot.org@dugnet.com).

    Makes it real easy to find out who's selling your "information".

    I know I have real media to thank for a large portion of my spam (collect from not-me@dugnet.com addresses to filter automatically into the spam filter).

    Needless to say, makes spam filtering a little easier and makes sorting a breeze.

    • I've been doing this for a few years now, and I have over 100 unique email addresses with firms I've done business with since 2000.

      Aside from Amazon.com making a 'mistake' (which they quickly corrected) I've had perhaps 1 spam from the lot of them - and in that case, it was easily identifiable and led to Oracle sending lawyers after someone.

      So it works. :)

  • As any good Ferengi will tell you... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Boyceterous ( 596732 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:54PM (#6343224)
    the 257th Rule of Acquisition says "Sell to your customers first, then sell your customers!"

  • "Renting" address lists? (Score:4, Funny)

    by mblase ( 200735 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:54PM (#6343227)
    JOHN Q. SPAMMER: Hey, can I buy about 100,000 email addresses from your database?
    ONLINE RETAILER: Sorry, we have a strict privacy policy that says we don't sell customer information.
    JQS: C'mon, I'll give you a penny per ten. That's $100.
    OLR: Our users are not for sale.
    JQS: $250. I'm cutting my own throat here.
    OLR: Well... our bandwidth bills were $360 last year....
    JQS: $350, then. Final offer.
    OLR: But, our privacy policy....
    JQS: Yeah, yeah. Tell you what, I'll give you the list back in a month. And I won't keep any backup copies. Promise.
    OLR: Whew, glad that clears my conscience.
  • I fail to see these companies can be restricted from selling customer information, but 'renting' it out is perfectly legal. When you enter into an agreement with these companies, aren't you technically 'selling' them your information in exchange for goods or services? Thus, 'renting' aka resale should also be prevented.

    Think of it like Blockbuster. They pay premium wholesale prices on movies so they can rent them out, which is why you're charged $100+ for a missing/over-late rental instead of the expect

  • Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Jonsey ( 593310 )
    Companies choose profit over privacy? Well no ****.

    Companies choose profit over everything.

    Note: this is said about companies as a whole. Similarly, even though you can have a ton of smart individuals in the world, people will always remain stupid as a whole.

  • Big surprise if you read it like me (Score:3, Funny)

    by MasTRE ( 588396 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:55PM (#6343249)
    Am I the only one who read this as

    Web Firms Choose Profit Over Piracy

    Now that would've been worthy news.

  • Business Plan (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Asprin ( 545477 ) <(moc.oohay) (ta) (dlonrasg)> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:55PM (#6343251) Homepage Journal

    If my email address is that damn valuable, it seems to me that I should be the one making money from it.

    Why couldn't I create a licensing program for my personal info to sell licenses to marketers for, say, $10 million US per contact attempt.

    It's my f***'n email address, after all, so I should be able to set the price. They should be at least as responsible with my information as other businesses are with their inventory.

  • firms choose profit (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Cid Highwind ( 9258 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @04:57PM (#6343268) Homepage
    Isn't that the whole point of capitalism?

  • California financial privacy initiative (Score:4, Interesting)

    by John Jorsett ( 171560 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:01PM (#6343320)
    This is why a California Financial Privacy Initiative [adlawbyrequest.com] is going to have to go before the voters. All the attempts to get a financial privacy measure thru the corrupt California legislature have failed due to opposition of big financial institutions and insurers, who are big contributors to the Democrats who run the place. We need something like this at a national level as well, but I'm not going to hold my breath till we get one through a Congress that lives with its hand out continually. A measure like this at the state level is better than nothing, at least.
    • the attempts to get a financial privacy measure thru the corrupt California legislature have failed due to opposition of big financial institutions and insurers, who are big contributors to the Democrats who run the place.

      Right. And the Republicans will just give businesses the finger while protecting the privacy rights of Joe Consumer in California. Riiiiiight.
      • Right. And the Republicans will just give businesses the finger while protecting the privacy rights of Joe Consumer in California. Riiiiiight.

        Like it matters what a Republican would or would not do in California. The California Republican caucus can hold its meetings in a phone booth. The Democrats hold every statewide office and just under two-thirds of both houses of the legislature. If a bill lives or dies, it's them doing it, not Republicans. The Republicans in Congress, however, are another story. A f

  • I was outraged... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:01PM (#6343323)
    ...to learn that the Hooked on Phonics company was promising not to sell or rent customer's information while advertising it for sale in a trade magazine. Until I read the reason - "A company spokeswoman said the firm was simply slow to update its policy."

    That's a big relief, because I was a little slow in updating my checkbook, and now that I think about it, I simply forgot that the account I wrote their check on was closed in 1996.
  • Is there any way that I could make my personal information (legally) into intellectually property? That way I could sue people who miss-use or sell this information for profit.

  • Profit will almost always come first... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:05PM (#6343362) Journal
    Q: What do you call a company that doesn't make a profit?

    A: Fucked.

    The main reason that most companies exist is to profit from their customers. Without making money from their customers, companies cannot pay their staff, their suppliers, their rent or their other bills and soon fold.

    No matter how well-intentioned or altruistic the principles of the company may be, any company that fails to generate revenue is doomed to failure - that's a fact that's pretty obvious to most of us but one that seems to have only just become clear to the management teams of a lot of dotcoms.

    Besides selling me something (or, better still, getting me to sell it for them on their behalf), there's only one way that a company can profit from me and that's by selling what it knows about me, my lifestyle and my shopping habits.

    I'm sure a lot of people would rather the online bookstore that they use went bust rather than even sharing one tiny shred of personal data but that's just not going to happen. After all, when it talk to its advertisers, a company will always give a generic breakdown of its customers, their typical spends and their buying patterns, and that's just as true of etailers as it is of retailers.

    Clearly, a company that will sell every last personal detail is not the kind of company that you want to deal with. But one that just describes you as customer a, living in country b, buying c items a month and spending an average of d on them isn't doing your privacy too much harm when it aggregates that data with that of 100,000 others before passing it on to a third party.

    That being said, I'll say what I've said countless times before: companies will always put profit before people.

    • Re:Profit will almost always come first... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:27PM (#6343582) Journal
      Hmm. Where to start tearing apart a post that I fundamentally agree with?

      Well, consider the aggregation of information--the information being sold(/rented/leased/traded) isn't always aggregate collections of anonymous data. More and more, it's becoming SPECIFIC information, along the lines of "you're name is a, your address is b, your annual income is c, and you like to see naked women doing x." This is DEFINITELY an invasion of my privacy and yours.

      Furthermore, it's becoming the standard. There are fewer and fewer companies who refuse to sell individually identifiable databases.

      Now moving backwards in your post, I have no problems with companies making a profit. I do object to companies making a profit off of me by exploiting me in ways I didn't agree to. If I buy a book from a bookstore, I expect them to be smart enough to mark it up in order to make a sustaining profit. If they can't make a profit without selling my reading preferences to someone else, then they DESERVE to go bankrupt! Piss on them if their business model doesn't work. (Banks are a different but related situation: They make a profit off of borrowing money and lending it out at higher rates. In the last decade, however, they decided that they can charge us for doing our OWN banking and make an extra profit. Service charges for routing banking should be illegal)

      Now another point to bring up is the fact that most of these companies under discussion are selling all of this personal information in direct violation of their contract with their customers! This is reprehensible, and possibly illegal. Again, it's also becoming common because they're not getting slapped down for it.

      Unfortunately, your final point holds true: Companies will always put profit ahead of people, and almost all companies are too short-sighted (read: dumb!) to understand that the two work together.

  • If it pays well.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Xunker ( 6905 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:10PM (#6343410) Homepage Journal
    ...some people will do it. It's money, and it's more money than a lot of people realize.

    For example, I run a site that's pretty damn big, something like 300,000 accounts so far. I've already gotten several "business inquries" from direct marketing companies asking if I'd like to "rent" my customer data to them -- and some of these people are offering upward of 5 cents per user. And I don't have to tell you that a nickel here and a nickel adds up.

    I haven't sold my user lists and never will, but rest assured that if I wanted to there is a huge market of companies that would be willing to let me name my own price.

    And that is why companies do it.

  • Cyberspace same as real space (Score:5, Interesting)

    by borkus ( 179118 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:11PM (#6343427) Homepage
    While I don't condone what Hooked on Phonics does, I wonder if they do something similar if you call their 1-800 number and you give them your mailing/shipping address. One of the big rationales behind store credit card offers and discount cards is obtaining customer information.

  • Incompetence: a winning strategy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:12PM (#6343439) Homepage

    Anyone notice an irksome trend amongst retailers? "Sure, we sold you down the river, but we're not evil, we're just dumber than squirrels. Tough break, but I'm sure none of the five hundred spamhausen we sold your kid's details to will be as unscrupulous or idiotic as us!"

    Since when did "We screwed up, but, meh." become an acceptable excuse?

    Oh, wait, since Enron and Worldcomm. I forgot. Sorry, my bad. :(

  • My big problem is the reverse marketing. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:13PM (#6343449)
    Or whatever you call it in this case..

    They say everything is private. So you give them the info. Then later, they want to change their policy, so they just notify everyone they are going to give away the info unless they are told not to.

    The thing is.. My deal with them is ALREADY DONE, and it was under the agreement that the info not be shared. I should not have to do maintenance to keep it that way.. THEY should have to get my express permission to share that information at a later date.. nut just send me a note and make me, again, state I don't want it released.. because we already agreed to that.

    I guess it's not marketing.. but it's like how some cable companies would give everyone the new, upgraded package of shows, then expect anyone who didn't want to pay extra once the trial period was up to notify them, or else get billed. I know in BC the courts ruled it an illegal practice. People already agreed to a package.. you can't start changing it. Of course, the cable company caved anyway before the courts were done when a thousand or so people called in to cancel their cable immediately in protest. That gets their attention.

    Changing a policy regarding that information should be clearly illegal.
  • people are afraid to shop online. Advertising is just the start; some porn companies sell cc card data and the offshore buyers commit cc fraud. It's happened to a few people I know and they get $20-200 charges their cc company won't cover.

    Online retailers will get away with anything they can and then some, doesn't matter if it's legal or not. The FTC lost it's teeth awile ago and unless that changes things can only get worse.

  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by poptones ( 653660 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:18PM (#6343484) Journal
    I just don't understand the bit about people insisting their online "anonymity" be preserved even when doing transactions that are inherently NOT "private" - simply because they rely on the existing banking structure and letters of credit. If you want to be anonymous go to wal-mart and pay cash; if you want convenience you're gonna have to give up a bit of that anonymity. Does it cost you money that B&N "sold" your taste in books to an advertiser? Does it threaten your security that doubleclick knows you like Erica Jong and Steven King? Do you really think doubleclick even cares that you like reading pulp novels? And do you think the police, if they wanted to, could not demand this information from B&N anyway?

    I keep just about everything on my PC encrypted; I was hacked once and the prospect of some anonymous joe having not only my name and address, but my complete work history (aka my resume) and being able to pin that to all the other crap on my computer (ie old porn) made me uncomfortable enough to take the initiative of encrypting all my user data so if I were hacked again about all they would find is a desktop with lots of programs installed and lots of MP3s. Being hacked worries me because that presents a real life security issue; doubleclick having my tastes in TV and clothing does not present a real life security issue.

    Does bob's baby world knowing the age of my child present a real life security issue? No. And if I don't want bob's baby world knowing my name and address there's no one twisting my arm to give them that info - and there are already laws on the books preventing "Hooked on Phonics" from giving bob that info. And if I should decide to let bob have my name and address, I think it's safe to say "bob" could easily discern the age and sex of my child simply by looking at what I purchased from him.

    If you value your privacy and you shop using credit cards, you have some issues you need to resolve. It doesn't matter whether you shop online or not - do you really think a Sears or a JC Whitney doesn't share it's list with others? A few years back this became clear even in our small town - when everyone in this town of 200+ who subscribed to JC Whitney catalogs suddenly found Adam & Eve catalogs in their mailbox. This was way back when "the internet" was pretty much the exclusive domain of universities - before Playboy had even gone online. Merchants trading mailing lists is nothing new; the only difference is now they can "see" where you windowshop as well as where you buy. If that makes you uncomfortable then buy another computer and use it exclusively for all your shopping; Get a numnbered Swiss account and a debit card drawn against it. Or better still: support the small merchants in your community instead of heading to Amazon.com for every damn thing.

    • Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Violet Null ( 452694 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:29PM (#6343598)
      Didn't read the article, did you?

      This wasn't an article crying, "Boo hoo, the marketers are selling our information!" It was in article crying, "Boo hoo, the marketers are telling us they won't sell our information, and are lying about it!"

      If a merchant says they won't sell any of my personal information, but neglects to say that they consider renting it out to be A-ok, I think there's a problem there.

      If a merchant says that they won't disclose any of my personal information, but neglects to say that transactions are handled by another company (even though they all take place on the merchant's site, with a little "Powered By CartManager" logo at the bottom), and that that third party has no trouble selling my personal information, I think there's a problem there.

      If a charity says on its web site that it won't disclose any of my personal information, but neglects to say that that just happens to not apply to people who donate through the mail instead of online, I think there's a problem there.

      Finally, if a merchant says they won't sell or rent my personal information, and then sells or rents it, I think there's a problem there.

      This has nothing to do with marketers collecting information. This has to do with marketers collecting information in methods that range from the dubious to the outright fraudulent.

      • Read the article (Score:3, Insightful)

        by poptones ( 653660 )
        You people are /. readers. Are you really so stupid as to think renting a mailing list means transfering a physical (or even electronic) copy?

        Duh. Here's how you rent a list: you set up a mail list server and your clients who "rent" your list know they can reach your customers by sending mail to that list.

        You DO NOT "rent" data by giving it away. Even the RIAA (now) knows this... it's amazing so many allegedly techincally literate souls at /. apparently do not.

  • Impose a "License" Upon Them (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:19PM (#6343502) Homepage Journal

    I wrote this [vwh.net] in a fit of pique some years back. I've never tried actually putting into practice, though.

    If, using nothing more than a, "license," these companies can absolve themselves of social responsibility with the stroke of a pen -- or the tap of a key -- then surely you can drag them back to civilized behavior using the same methods.

    Schwab

  • Speaking of profits (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Microsift ( 223381 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:21PM (#6343523)
    If you're going to include a link in a slashdot story, link to the page with ads. It's not free to put content on the web, and the producers of content deserve compensation.

    Linking to a page where the newspaper, who has expended capital to report the story, will get no ad revenue is wrong!
    • I tend to agree, but this case is a little different. WashingtonPost.com has that annoying survey thing you have to go through to get to the story. Problem is, it doesn't work with all browsers. I can't get past that page using Phoenix at all, even with accepting all the cookies they try to give me.

  • Deja Vu? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AnalogDiehard ( 199128 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:34PM (#6343642)
    FTC sues Toysmart.com [ftc.gov]

  • In other news... (Score:3, Funny)

    by LeoHat ( 415705 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:35PM (#6343647)
    ... Water is discovered to be wet

    still no cure for cancer.

  • Surprising? No. Disappointing? Yes. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by indros13 ( 531405 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @05:37PM (#6343674) Homepage Journal
    Given how file sharing has potentially cut into profits of software and music companies, you would think that many businesses would simply be glad to have a paying customer.

    Seriously, though, I don't think we should have to resign ourselves to the obligatory "guess who's not surprised" comment every time we hear about this. The free market is based upon the theory that people make rational decisions based on a full knowledge of the exchange. When an online company deliberately conceals their ability to profit from my transaction without my knowledge, that's kind of like me giving you $10 for that old coffee table and then taking your daughter's virginity to boot. It's doubtful that the $10 I originally offered would have sufficed as payment for the coffee table and the additional service taken.

    The point: I should be informed how my information will profit the company and be given full value for the exchange. If my information can be sold or rented for $10, then I should receive an in-kind discount on the product or service I am getting. Or alternatively, if I find the practice repugnant, I can take my business to someone who offers a comprehensive privacy policy that is worth paying the extra $10 for.

  • Is there a problem? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tengwar ( 600847 ) <slashdot&vetinari,org> on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:14PM (#6344044)
    I use the usual system of one-per-company addresses, all aliased to my normal address, with the ability to divert them to the bit-bucket if they become a problem. I've had this address for about five years, and I buy a lot of stuff on the Web, but I have no, as in zero, spam. I've never yet had to devnull any of the addresses (there are currently 90), but I've yet to have offers to enlarge portions of my anatomy or bank balance. I've not used any of the addresses on Usenet, but other than that I've not taken any precautions. Am I alone in this?

  • solution: strict liability (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kaltkalt ( 620110 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @06:59PM (#6344429)
    Spam should obviously be illegal, and the spammer should be fined. Allow the guilty spammer to sue the person who provided him with the email list for contribution (i.e. make everyone down the chain jointly and severally liable) and this bullshit will stop real fucking quickly. Whenever someone gets an unsolicited advertisement, everyone down the chain is strictly liable.

    Example: Company X sells its customer data to company Y, who compiles the data on CDROMs and sells it to spammer Z. Spammer Z is fined $10,000 per email he sends (in my perfect world). Spammer Z, after being sued and found liable for a large sum of money, should be able to sue the company Y for contribution, and Co. Y should be able to sue Co. X, so that each guilty party pays their pro rata share of the fine(s). It's just like strict products liability; improperly using customer data is like putting a defective product into the stream of commerce.

    And like with defective products, liability shouldn't be allowed to be waived, as that's against public policy. No "you give us permission to use your data any way we want" disclaimers--they should all be void. Selling customer data (or "renting it") for any marketing purpose is per se improper usage. Kinda like how Ford can't make you sign something saying you won't sue them if your car's tires blow out. If it's really Firestone's fault, then once you sue Ford, Ford can sue Firestone.

  • Who are the customers, I wonder? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Frobnicator ( 565869 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @07:01PM (#6344449) Journal
    From the article:
    "We continually review our performance, and believe our procedures have been extremely effective in providing for the privacy preferences of our customers."
    Now, are they talking about the customers who they sell or lease their information to (spammers), or the customers that they obtained the email addresses from?

    Just try to find out where a company got your address from... you can't do it. Ask which companies they sell or rent your address to, and they won't tell.

    They really mean it. They respect the privacy of their customers, but not consumers.

    frob

  • Charities (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mr. Piddle ( 567882 ) on Tuesday July 01, 2003 @08:58PM (#6345276)
    Recently, for example, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation advertised that its list of donors, including postal addresses, was for rent.

    Charities are often the worst privacy whores. They also have no qualms about hiring mercenaries (i.e., telemarketing firms) to do their dirty work. I have recieve several calls, where some sappy loser tries to make me feel guilty for not supporting the goldfish at Wal-Mart or something, and they quickly blurt out that they are actually some sort of telemarketing company when I tell them to take me off their list and never call back.

    I hate to say it, but charities often give charity a bad name.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close