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."
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.)