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."

Comments

slashdot?

[slashdoter]

Does Slashdot and Andover.net have a privacy officer?

I know exactly what it means

[whm]

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

I wan't this job.

[Shoeboy]

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

Privacy offline

[91degrees]

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.

This is already required in Europa

[kris]

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

I've said it before, and I've said it again...

[mindstrm]

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.)

Privacy is a market

[sonnerbob]

I'm utterly and completely outside of the corporate world of the dotcoms. Yet whatever glimpse I get of the motivations, ambitions and strategies of these enterprises indicates to me that concern for the customer comes in dead last. Customers are nothing more than fish to be seined. A customer database, the ability to market to it or leverage it for revenue, is the principle asset that any of these ventures have. So the last thing they want to respect is privacy...

...until it becomes a marketable aspect of their scheme. Privacy concerns being the leading issue of the day, many of these dotcoms which never batted an eyelash at respect for privacy are now installing CPOs, publishing Privacy Statements, getting their TrustE certificates, and joining the Online Privacy Alliance...all to woo the consumer with their promise of privacy leadership. The mere posting of a privacy statement doesn't mean they uphold standards to which you'd subscribe. Reading closely, you'll find it is normally a disclaimer saying they'll do what they've always done, but now their letting you read it -- if you can get through the convoluted writing.

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>