Slashdot Mirror
The CPO Cometh
Afterimage writes: "This article at Salon from the AP mentions several big name firms are adding chief privacy officers to their executive staffs. The general take is that these new folks are to retain customers by not infringing on personal information. I think the verdict is still out on exactly what this means, but hopefully, it's the avoidance of another DoubleClick or Toysmart.com debacle."
Does Slashdot and Andover.net have a privacy officer?
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
Is this finally a sign that companies are actually listening to their customers wishes? It has been proved recently that customers do not want their details spread from one company to the next without their permission and especially without even their knowledge, and it seems like some companies are acknowledging the fact that making the same kind of privacy issue/fuckup that DoubleClick made will lose them both repsect and, more importantly, customers.
This is a good trend for tech-savvy companies to adopt, and one that is hopefully a sign that people are becoming more aware of the issues that a networked world raises. And once a few companies have started this, hopefully the increased respect that it will gain them will make other companies follow suit.
The law might not have worked in this case, but maybe consumer pressure will.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Jon Erikson, IT guru
I found this line a little concerning "They are being asked to educate their company, the public and legislators about privacy, said Hoffman" does this sound like a "spinmister"? I hate to see a big company try to "educate". Look at the RIAA's web site. Have you read how they "educate" their readers, it's just spin P.S BACK OFF DAMN GRAMMER JEW
Does anyone actually have a Java program designed to control air traffic, or for the operation of a nuclear facility?
The CPO is somebody who knows exactly how far they can go without pissing off their customers.
This isn't somebody to protect privacy, this is somebody to help them get away with as much as possible.
Heath
... is so few that makes noise about how most(?) big offline shops and credit card companies and whatnot sells the information about what you buy, when and where and such things.
It's almost scary what they have on file.
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen
Sitting in a corner office with an executive level salary getting paid to not spy on people. This is sweet. If there's one thing I'm good at it's not doing stuff.
--Shoeboy
Strangely enough, a lot of people who are concerned about their privacy on line seem to only care about it online. For years, Supermarkets have been correlating and cross referencing our buying habits, for more carefully targetted advertising, using loyalty cards.
They manage to convince people that this is what they want. How long will it be before they can convince us that online web tracking is also what we want? People are remarkable forgiving when you give them 1% of what they spend back.
We'll need to see how much walking there is based on this talking. Taking privacy -- and therefore -- rights more seriously is finally a positive success for the recognition of these concerns.
More than being a 'sexy' title (the article suggests that the old terms are 'passe'), let's see what kind of background CPOs come from, and how active and informed they are with in privacy and rights communities.
-- Matthew - matthew.gream@pobox.com, http://matthewgream.net
Aparently some companies are finally getting the whole privacy on the Internet issue. For a very long time I've been resigned to the fact that privacy on the 'net is an illusion. For all the privacy statements out there, one sometimes has to wonder just how effective they are.
A company I used to work for (who shall remain nameless) had me develop a privacy statement for their website (at my urging). While there wern't any technical violations, the company's managment seemd to go all out to try to violate the spirit if not the letter of the statement--we were always looking for ways to grab more 'customer info' to add to the CRM database. Granted, not exactly wrong--but let's be honest, why put a privacy policy in place if you're working against it?
That situation (and more recently Toysmart.com) have had me considering how effective privacy policies are. Perhaps putting a CPO in place will add some checks and balances to the process.
Kudos to AT&T, Prudential, Citibank and the others. Some people seem to be getting it.
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
How many of those three-letter titles does the business world need? I am just waiting for CIYFRHE, or Chief Insert-Your-Favourite-Role-Here Executive, shortened to CXE.
Oh, you mean like this one that i've had for a couple of weeks? Now run along little boy, there's traffic to play with.
.the anti-troll
According to the European Privacy Directive, which is to become law in all EU states, this is already required for EU based companies.
© Copyright 2000 Kristian Köhntopp
How many of these companies with the CPO are 'US' only and do not have a presence in the EU?
try to make ends meet, you're a slave to money, then you die
Don't you think it's kind of suprising how much pressure business come under to protect the privacy of it's customers and yet the privacy of it's employees (a company's second most valuable set of people) is tramped over roughshod. I think the problem stems from the laws governing employees/employer relationships. Maybe the government should "sell" laws. Thus a company could use one of a choice of laws and their choice of law would be defined by the employees likes or dislikes. You know...create a competetive market for laws which will benefit the consumers...the public. This is all getting a bit deep and I never studied politics. My head hurts. ;-)
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
These companies are just going to grab someone from Marketing or customer relations, call them the "Chief Privacy Officer", and have them arrange meetings until they have a vague clue of what they're talking about.
That way, people who are worried about their privacy can think "Ahh, they have a CPO, which is important, like a CEO or a CFO! My privacy is insured!"
We need some kind of blanket privacy law that guarantees the minimum expected privacy, namely:
When information is given in the course of business, that information may only be used for the purposes it was given.
NOt simply 'not sold' but 'not used' for any other purpose. So... if I give my name and address to the car dealership.. well.. I undertand that this is because I may owe them some money, and because they need to notify me of recall, etc. I could not deny that this is what I feel I have given them this information for.
THey would be unable, however, to start sending me junkmail about anything else, or to give my information away, even to another, new department of the same company.
The video store could take your name and address so they can track down their videos when you don't return them.. but they could *not* give the information to anyone. They could *NOT* even start sending you junkmail.
Now.. all *any* company has to do is *ask* and they may use your information for other things. But we must make the law force them to ask. THis is called consumer protection.
What about credit reporting? Sure.. that's fine. I mean, if I borrow money, and I give you my name, I expect that I'm giving it to you so you can identify me if I skip. You can just have it in the contract.
This is not 'evil' or 'anti-capitalist' or 'commie'.. this is simply consumer protection. Just as we have laws regarding the rights consumers have on newly purchased 'things'. We have 'implied warranties' (it is expected that the 'thing' you bought does what it says it does when you get it home.)
Damn, beat me to it. Cool link--thanks!
qaeiou saeiou azeiou waeiou saeiou xaeiou eaeiou
-=(0 Text here to avoid -1 for short post 0)=-
daeiou caeiou raeiou faeiou vaeiou taeiou gaeiou
CPOs can be a good thing, acting as a staff watchdog to ensure that the company's direction doesn't cannibalize its customer base by losing trust with it. The simple existence of a CPO doesn't mean anything. It depends on what powers, dedication and attention he/she is given within the strategic direction of the company. On the other hand, a CPO is also the CEO's charge for positioning the company in a favorable PR light. Ray-Everett Church has done a lot to position AllAdvantage as a privacy respecting "Infomediary". Well, I guess you could stretch the definition (which was coined not by privacy advocates but by the authors of "Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities")
<sigh> But then, I'm over 30, which I guess means I have an overly protective concern for my privacy in the age of the Internet. You younger kids apparently don't share the fuss (read this)</sigh>
Get Veiled
First, as a few others here have pointed out, the mere presence of a CPO serves only to reassure customers, not to actually guarantee privacy. I suggest you not assume anything you do is private unless you know exactly how it's working.
Second, you'll note that the CPO is only there to preserve the privacy of the customers, not the employees. If you buy something from a corp, maybe they aren't passing that info to other companies, but if you work for them, they're still reading all your email.
Personally, I'm less concerned with the minor privacy issue of building purchase profiles and sharing them (if I'm gonna get ads tossed at me, they might as well be for stuff I might actually wnat) than the major privacy issue of your employer monitoring everything you do on company time.
What really makes me angry is that these are also the idiots who are pulling down the really high wages that suck the lifeblood of the company and when it's apparent that the company is having financial trouble, the morons lay off hundreds to thousands of their hard working blue collar workers, whose combined salaries still don't match that of the top executives. Or, they might "release" several of the executives, but have to pay 'em six or seven digit figures as a "Severance Package"
NO human being works hard enough to claim earning that kind of money!
I say let's terminate with extreme prejudice (meaning NO severance package!) all top and mid level management, distribute all that wealth to hard working blue collar America and eliminate this struggle we face in trying to earn a decent living!