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."

Comments

My message to Amazon

[Spinality]

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.

This is unbelievable

[hillct]

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


--

My info is Amazon's business asset?

[gavinhall]

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.

Amazon Merger!

[Futurepower(tm)]

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.