Slashdot Mirror
FTC Accepts Revised Amazon Privacy Rules
adashtrash writes: "This article, from a Seattle area news source, reports that the Federal Trade Commission has ruled that Amazon did not deceive consumers with their revised privacy policy. This policy claimed Amazon's right to consider user information as a business asset, and removed users' 'opt-out' options. In fact, even those customers who previously had opted out of sharing personal information were now at risk of having that information shared out with Amazon partners or even sold at Amazon's discretion. Two privacy watchdog groups had protested to the FTC, prompting today's ruling."
The ruling only seems to confirm the wisdom of my choice at the time Amazon's privacy policy was revised.
And that decision is this:
Previously, my wife and I probably bought about $500/year of merchandise from them, but not any more.While most consumers blithely choose to be oblivious of corporate intrusions into their privacy, my small decision is meant, however infinitesimally, to promote the respect of my privacy in businesses that want to collect my money.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Amazon spammed, and we said "they're scum", and everyone said "no, it's just a misunderstanding, and you can always opt out".
Amazon filed frivolous patent lawsuits, and we said "they're scum", and everyone said "no, it's a purely defensive patent, that's why they need to take it to court to prevent people from doing something similar".
Amazon invented "purchase circles", and everyone defended them.
Have you guys gotten the clue yet? Spammers always lie. They always cheat. They always steal. They don't change their colors. In general, they don't reform. When you know that a company is willing to send mail to people who never asked for it, you know that, when times are tough, that company will sell your name, your credit card number, whatever they can *get*, to try to stay in business.
So how about, next time, when someone points out that a geek-darling company spams, bite back the instinctive response of "you can just opt out", and remember that *YOU*, the people who defended Amazon for so long, are the people who showed them that the geek community didn't really care about privacy, and today, no, you can't opt out.
We told you so.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
Big Corporation: Sirs, we want...
Regulatory Body: You got it.
Big Corporation: But...
Regulatory Body: You got it.
Big Corporation: Heh, we didn't even say what is it we want.
Regulatory Body: Whatever it is, you got it. We're here to please you. Do you want a blow job too?
Big Corporation: Hm, er... yes, that would be nice.
Regulatory Body: (cracking whip) Joe Consumer! Give Big Corporation a blow job. NOW, or I'll cut your ration again!
Joe Consumer: Arf! Arf!
Is that countries are not made of 'consumers'.. they are made of 'citizens'.. and in a roundabout way, Government making rules = CITIZENS making rules.
If the people want to restrict what Amazon can do, doing it through government is an option.
Interesting...
EU privacy directives state that no data should be sent to sites which do not comply to the EU's privacy policies[1]. So Amazon is illegal to use for anybody in the EU.
[1]Such policies state basically that every entity which has a database of personal informations must allow the persons registered there to view, modify and delete any information stored in such databases. Furthermore, prior to inserting any personal data in any database, the person whose data are being inserted is to be notified of the fact, and any use of the data has to be authorized (most italian sites for instance have a double checkbox which has to be checked, one allowing use of the data for the transaction the data is being isnerted for, and another for "extra" uses such as SPAM^H^H^H^Htargeted email advertising, etc. ALL uses have to be notified.)
... because, under European Union law at least, it's illegal to either:
or
If they're breaking these laws, they should beware. Some EU countries, unlike the US, seemingly, take the privacy of their citizens/subjects very seriously.
Mind you, having set up an account with amazon.com and finding that the information in my account is stored independently of that for amazon.co.uk (so I would have a blank account on amazon.com, were I to move stateside or want something delivered there or somesuch), I'm annoyed with them. Not to mention their 'patent' abuses...
James F.
Because some people might decide that their privacy is less valuable than what someone offers them for their information? Just because you (and I, in most cases) don't agree with that decision doesn't mean it's not theirs to make.
Accepting this argument would logically lead to arguming for the imagined right of people to sell themselves into slavery.
Most of us regularly sacrifice some of our freedom in exchange for money; it's called "work".
His argument is still invalid, because Amazon changing their policy retroactively is a blatant breach of contract. But what this shows is that the FTC can't be counted on to protect consumers, because surprisingly government organizations do not always act in the best interests of the public. This should make people stop and think before proposing government intervention as the solution to every problem.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I sent the following email to Amazon.com:
I am disturbed by your new privacy policy with its provision to transfer customer information:
"In such transactions, customer information generally is one of the transferred business assets. Also, in the unlikely event that Amazon.com, Inc., or substantially all of its assets are acquired, customer information will of course be one of the transferred assets."
You will see from my account history that I have made many Amazon.com purchases in the past. I can't believe you want to lose me and other customers like me. But because of this provision, I am considering removing my customer information from your database, and stopping doing business with you. I have not yet made up my mind.
Please reconsider this policy, or consider adding a commitment that any transfer of my customer information to a third party will place the acquiring party under the same opt-out restrictions under which I provided that information to you. This does not seem an unreasonable restriction, and in fact might be seen as increasing the value of your assets, since it would ensure a happier customer base.
Thank you.
-- We all have enough strength to endure the misfortunes of other people. La Rochefoucauld
Amazon is feeling the pinch. People who invested money in the giant red hole called Amazon.com want to see some profit sometime this century. Amazon is squeezing the lemon for all it's worth. Plus, given the current state of funding for dot-coms, Amazon is probably putting together war plans for going out of business or selling off unprofitable divisions, just in case.
I don't buy from them anyway because they are the poster child for patent abuse. And now this. How many reasons do you need to boycott Amazon?
-----------------------
-----------------------
Stay in school, kids! Peace out, Dubya
Not only does it suck that there's no way to decide not to accept the privacy policy changes, as far as I know it's blatently illegal. I'm not a lawyer and aparently the FTC disagrees with me, but how is it that such policies can be changed in such a way as to make it impossible for existing customers to take action which will cause the policy not to apply to them.
For example, credit card companies always reserve the right to change their policies at any time, with wtitten notice, however in the policy change notice, there is a required statement to the effect that "Customers who choose not to accept the updated policies, may cancel their service within 30 days, provided written notice, durring which time the policy will not take effect for them". Amazon has gotten around that entirely. There appears to be no way to compel Amazon to remove your customer data from their database even if you disagree with their policies to the point that you hoose to no longer do business with them. Amazon has one thing working in their favor (and I'm not certain about the details of this, but...) unlike in a court of law, the policy ruling of the FTC can not be appealed in the legal sense. There are appeal procedured but they are all internal to the FTC and as far as I can tell, rather stilted in favor of the corporate entity who's policy was under review.
All the attention that has been givel privacy policies of late, has had the profoundly negitive impact of prompting corporate lawyers to see what they can actually get away with without being smacked by the FTC. There are now companies who have chosen to initiate sales (to previous or existing customers) wherre those customers must take positive action to prevent the transaction, unlike treditional sales malings where an offer is made and the customer must act in order to initiate the transaction. This too was deemed legal, so long as the practive was outlined in that company's privacy policy / terms of service. This stuff is really getting way out of hand, but nothing will be done to correct it until a high profile case is found, that can serve as a PR statement for privacy and fair business practices advocates.
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
Posted by serpens:
So does this mean that since I am the owner of the information and Amazon is simply borrowing/renting/licensing/stealing it from me, I have the right to charge Amazon for selling my information? If it is a business asset to them, it is also certainly a business asset to me and they are a customer to that.
I believe it's time we all sent them a bill and a AUP for renting our information.
...but I thought that the selling of SSNs and CCNs was illegal.
Guess that only counts if you're a small business or a 'criminal'.
Off to send my "you won't get another dime out of me, you bastards" mail...
- I am made of meat.
Microsoft, Amazon, AOL, and the U.S. Defense Department will merge to form a new company: MAAD.
The new company will be the most abusive company in the history of the world. It will sell deliberately defective products so you will need to upgrade, show no respect for your privacy, spam you with porno invitations, and, if you complain, bomb your country.
Bush's education improvements were
I think the point is that people who signed up with Amazon BEFORE they said they would start giving out information, now have no way to stop their information from getting out, so it really doesn't matter if they stop buying from Amazon.
it's because they told FTC that they would not sell the data.
That just makes it more confusing, doesn't it...
If you stop for a moment, & analyze his arguments, he's just trying to get everyone to the left of Patrick Buchanan (which has to be 90% of the readers of /.) angry & respond.
/. was opposed to.
> Let Amazon have any privacy rule they want. Let them sell
> their information to every advertiser in the world. But let the consumer choose if he wants to buy Amazon products and give
> his information to Amazon. If he doesn't like the idea of advertisers calling him up then he's free to shop at bn.com. It's
> called capitalism, gentlemen.
Notice how shallow is reasoning actually is: as a for instance, he ducks the question why is it a good thing to trade privacy for convenience? Accepting this argument would logically lead to arguming for the imagined right of people to sell themselves into slavery. Which -- last I heard -- everyone here on
Let's not feed this troll. Move along -- there's nothing to see.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
People wonder why people don't shop online in larger numbers. DUH! Online shopping is still getting a rap for being unsafe. Actions like this aren't helping. I still phone order stuff and don't give an e-mail. To spam my PO box is going to cost them postage. My anti-sucker shopping mode still applies. If You call, email, or mail me, regardless of the sweetness of the deal, it's no deal. This simple rule has saved me lots of grief. If I call you, have your order pad handy. It keeps the spam down. My e-mail is not associated with any online purchase. The downside is all I get in spam is the sleaseball stuff with forged headers from massively sold make money fast operators and nothing from any reputable company.
The truth shall set you free!
--
What the fuck is the point of a privacy policy?
A privacy policy is an agreement between the company and the customer about the usage of personal, sensitive information. If I don't like the terms, then I don't use their site. Simple as that. But now, the increasingly worthless FTC has decided that I'm SOL if I provide my information with the understanding that I may opt-out at a later date, but my opt-out right is later revoked. So I ask again -
What the fuck is the point of privacy policy?
Now, all a privacy policy means is that I'm trusting a corporation not to fuck me later. Some companies are better bets than others. However, in this goddamn golden age of corporate mergers and buyouts, I have no guarantee my data won't be whored out once a trustworthy company is acquired by another with less scruples.
So I say, "Thank you FTC", for sending the message, loud and clear, that if I choose to use the Internet for e-Commerce I have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to define the usage of my own information.
-------
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
culture jamming the megacorps customer information databases...
Standard default rules!
The thing that really sucks about this is if you were a customer before the revised policy and you decided that this is unacceptible and canceled your account with them, your information will still be in their database just waiting to be sold. In other words, once your in you ain't getting out.
Government should not be in the business of regulating business. Let Amazon have any privacy rule they want. Let them sell their information to every advertiser in the world. But let the consumer choose if he wants to buy Amazon products and give his information to Amazon. If he doesn't like the idea of advertisers calling him up then he's free to shop at bn.com. It's called capitalism, gentlemen. And anything that isn't capitalism is communism. So which will it be?? Um, I don't think you understand how our democracy works.
You see in a pure capitalist society you will have a hand full of people become extremely rich and everyone else will be extremely poor. Only through socialist policies can the government protect the everyone else through things like minimum wage, safety regulations, health standards, and all the other things that protect the workers and consumers. If it weren't for the government protecting your rights from large corporations we would all be living in bunkhouses of large factories in a form of pseudo-slavery.
I'm not saying that the government completely protect our right, they do things that put the corporations before us too. But there are things in place that are meant to protect us, and there are currently acts in congress that target personal privacy specifically so that companies like Amazon can't distribute your information on a whim and give you no choice in the matter.