Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Cited By FTC For Deceptive Practices
target writes: "An article from salon reports that the FTC has ruled that amazon and its subsidiary alexa 'probably deceived customers' by passing on to the compaines personal information. Not that they're going to do anything but point it out, of course." Note that this is about different aspects of Amazon's privacy policy than reported in this story a few days ago, where the powers that be decided that removing 'opt-out' choices, among other things, did not deceive customers.
Hi. Do you have a girlfriend? Mind if I pop over and take pictures of you guys going at it? What was that you said? That would be invading your what?
I wonder if anyone will really mod this up as 'interesting'? :)
--
Alexa always told people they were following their user paths in all of their privacy policies. Before they switched to an XML data feed their URLs were in the properties of the web page. Smith, who is really more of a media whore than anything else, made a big deal as if Alexa was trying to hide something, he had to use a "packet sniffer", although the javascript was/still is all clearly readable, then went to terribly designed sites that had passwords and addresses in GET requests. If they had done something wrong, don't you think the FTC would have continued the investigation? That class members would have the possibility of getting more than $40?
they weren't "cited". The FTC disagreed w/their practices, but isn't going to do anything at this time. Seems Amazon's partner in crime has changed its policy (states something about "it is sometimes tracked anonymously and not linked w/names"
how is this different from any other marketing information gathering device (for sale databases, grocery store name here cards, etc)
everyone is watching what their buyers are purchasing.. Most grocery stores don't tell you that they are going to do that when you sign up for their "savings cards", how is what Amazon doing any different?
I met Brewster Kahle, the founder of Alexa, a few years ago and he was good-naturedly ribbing me about working for the Evil Empire of IBM (actually Lotus, which was acquired). Well, now the shoe is on the other foot, Mr. Kahle.
I like to fill out all of the e-mail address boxes with "postmaster@domain.com" where the domain is the site I'm downloading from. I bet postmaster@real.com is getting really tired of the spam from his own company by now, as is postmaster@iomega.com, postmaster@apple.com, postmaster@novell.com, etc. etc. :)
---
When in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout. --Robert A. Heinlein
Here's the email I sent to Amazon.com letting them know how I feel:
The worst part is, I don't really believe this will accomplish much. I'd like to believe that such behavior does have a chilling effect on ecommerce. More likely, I'm the minority in a sea of lemmings with open pocketbooks.
I've said for a year now that Amazon has been taking a loss on its retail divison to build up the most incredibly targeted marketing database in history. Customers of Amazon could see it in the extensive preferences & rating system that they have used throughout their site.
Retail booksales has such a narrow margin these days that if Amazon were ever to turn a profit, they HAD to do something like this.
Lessons learned:
Scott1) Information is King, Queen, AND Crown Prince.
2) Don't exceed your comfort zone when it comes to giving away personal information just for a good price.
3) The almighty buck trumps the hell out of Privacy Statements.
When I started getting spam (not from Amazon) to an email address I *only* use with Amazon, I couldn't believe it. Unfortunately, all it's done is make it so that I don't believe anyone's privacy policy anymore. After all, if Amazon can just all of a sudden decide to sell my info, so can anyone else. I pretty much use a different email address everywhere I sign up for anything now. That way, if they do the same thing, ~blip~ Right into Procmail it goes.
It's just another chilling reminder that any kind of contract isn't worth much more than the paper (the screen) it's printed on if someone with a lot of money wants to break it and some little person like me doesn't have the resources to fight it.
Thanks, Amazon, for adding to the restoral of my faith in humanity.
Not bad one out of a million. Too bad we can't skate by on that kind of performance in our lives.
War is necrophilia.
" Oh right, if people know you have a medical condition or that you are gay or that you have used drugs, then they can discriminate against you."
Yes that's the exact point. The world is still full of hateful people who would discriminate against you if you were gay (god forbid you have aids). Maybe they can deny you housing, or a job. Maybe it's even worse and they decide to teach you a lesson for moving into their neighborhood. Don't kid yourself this is still a racist country.
War is necrophilia.
From Richard Smith, with the University of Denver's Privacy Foundation: "I think they needed to come down harder in this case," Smith said. "I found (Amazon's response) kind of strange. They should have just changed their software to work how the privacy policy said it worked."
The FTC doesn't have a lot of room though anyway. The software in question (the comparison shopping service zBubbles) is now unused, and the privacy policy has been "corrected".
for each address in list, send spam to address@domain
Or, they may have purchased the list of addresses from the ISP.
Best Slashdot Co
As slashdotters, who else are we boycotting?
Amazon, for silly patents and now this...
Money cannot buy happiness, but can buy something soo darn close, that you can't really tell the difference
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Hopefully common sense will one day prevail when it comes to people purchasing things online, and when using programs created by those companies you've made the purchases from.
When one goes to buy things online, your often going to see something like a radio button asking whether you want something in the future, or would like to subscribe to, or other option, and this is no different then when you go into department stores, and the cashier asks if you'd like to sign up for another credit card, or would like to receive X_OTHER information via mail, etc.
Marketing companies, and marketing departments try to use the data for obvious reasons, to sell you more products, but at times they also use that data to try to predict trends in what to sell next, or what to add. However the differences when you buy online, and in person is, in person you can look someone dead in the eye and say no, but on the net you really have little control.
Spyware programs which claim never to use people information for the company's personal gain are almost always a sham, and I feel this way after working with a company who developed a product they claimed wasn't spyware, but yet tracked when the user logged in with the program, what the person purchsed, etc., when I asked my bosses about it, it was amusing to see the obscurity they placed behind tracking information.
Lets be realistic here, using a program by a company which sells goods, is going to by some means monitor something, and you should be aware that no matter what is said, that information can be tracked to you no matter what the company says, either by a username, trends in shopping, or even IP addresses, and that's the bottom line any way you slice it. How else do you expect them to make money?
On a side note, after sleeping 3 hours within the past 48, I wonder if I make any sense!@
Want Root?
There is a question of "the ability to do something" and "the will to do something"
I don't want to sound pro-Microsoft (I'm not) but the reality is that as a near monopolist in several areas of software, the second largest employer in Washington State, and (need I mention) a generous campaign contributor, the Fed will walk on eggs when coming up with any remedies to control Our Friends In Redmond.
Once you get past the breathless hype of the New Economy, Amazon is expendable. Jeff Bezos could be swatted out of existence, and the loss of every single job at Amazon would result in a small change in the unemplyment rate of Greater Seattle, and a zero change in any meaningful national economic statistics related to employment, GDP, the value of the NASDAQ, or any other indicator you care to fish up.
Who knows, without an Amazon.com to surf to, office productivity might even rise a few ticks.
Attachmate (a privately-held middish-to-big Seattle software firm you've probably never heard of) puts more money into the economy than Amazon.
The FTCs lack of action does not indicate the goverment does not have the means. They certainly do. They just don't have the desire.
cynically yrs,
j.
Why do people feel that they have lost their privacy? It has been gone for a long time. And, don't forget, giving up privacy can be (gasp!) a good thing.
Scenario: You are in an accident. Medic checks your medical history. Finds out that you will die if given some injection of some chemical. Medic gives you another injection instead. You give up your privacy. You live.
The idea is that we need to be willing to give up our privacy to right people at the right time. The government knows a ton about you. The government is run by people. Therefore, other people still know a lot about you, even if you hide shit from companies.
I have an interesting aside. I have a friend who talks openly about all the porn he views each day. He is married and has kids. This shocks me. However, he is now home free. No person can ever really blackmail him about the pornography his views every day. He tells the world what he does and the world can't kick his ass. He has not a drip of fear... This is an interesting philosophy. It is a kick ass pre-emptive strike. I think it sort of relates here.
What are we all hiding? Who gives a shit? Oh right, if people know you have a medical condition or that you are gay or that you have used drugs, then they can discriminate against you. What a tangled web we weave.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Dammit, Amazon is the best candidate for helping me earn money from my pet website. I don't really want to ask people for donations - seems like asking for something for nothing, and it's still a pain getting small transactions.
But it's obvious Amazon is going to behave less and less ethically before it finally starts making a profit or goes down the gurgler. Even worse, it's pointless crap like marketing data which is not going to save them, just piss lots pf people off. It's getting to the point where I'm ashamed to have their logo on my site - guess it'll be back to the old drawing board.
that was 90 years ago
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
If the microsoft Anti trust lawsuit has showed us anything its that the government has very little power when it comes to the moderation of large companies. Although i am not the most informed person i cannot remember an instance in which the government was able to punish a wealthy company for 'crimes' they may have commited. The only successful attacks on companies only seem to come from individual lawsuits. Then again often the money transfered in these lawsuits is infinitesimal compared to the overall value of the company. What we really need is someone in power who is willing to enforce American business laws. It sure as hell isn't going to be Bush. He likes to believe he is a businessman.
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
FTC, with lances and shields: "Right. Now don't do it again!"
Sorry. Gut response. You know how it goes.
TomatoMan
-- http://frobnosticate.com
-Legion
Look at the suits running amazon an dthe suits in Washinton (DC, not Seattle:-)). Which is more likely to act against your best interests...
I don't like Amazon's business practices so I don't deal with them anymore. I went from spending 1000+ quid one year to nothing from then on. That's not going to make anyone at their head office lose sleep unless enough others did the same of course, but more important is that the 1000 qid now goes to people who are less obnoxious (Books Online mostly, so if someone can tell me why they are evil too my bank manager would be very grateful:-)).
_O_
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
There has been preliminary approval of a settlement. The court is scheduled to hold a "fairness hearing" on 27 July 2001. It looks like Alexa will lose a couple million dollars. Is this enough to deter others from trying such tricks?
It's different because Amazon was violating their own privacy policy. They stated clearly that they would aggregate the information and not use it to identify individual customers. They lied. They were reprimanded by the FTC for being deceptive, not for being intrusive.
Standard Oil? If it doesn't ring a bell that's because the US broke it up! :)
Cheers Koz
As far as I am aware, isn't this illegal under EU law as far as European citizens are concerned?
You have to give your private info to these companies, but you want to control how they use it. Does anyone else find this familiar? Isn't it just what software licenses and EULAs do? Why not take a page from their book and license your private information.
When you place an order, specify that you are providing this information in accordance with your Information License (provide a URL) and accepting your offer constitutes acceptance of the license. Then you control what the policy is. If they have a problem accepting it, they can email you and talk it over or whatever. It might be worth trying.
I know that licenses like this may not stand up in court, but that doesn't stop software companies from using them or people from honoring them. If anything, a customer's license is likely to have more standing, because the customer's hands are more tied. It's probably worth trying.
Anyone want to help this project out? Help work out a standard license to use for this? Drop me a line, this could be cool.
It seems that as long as you are a corporation in America you can get away with just about everything short of murder.
I don't really want to stretch the EU is great type of argument. But when Volkswagen for example violated EU laws, by threatening their Italian dealers to yank their franchises if they sold (cheaper) to German and Swiss customers they where fined dozens of millions Euros for that. Same happened to Tetra Pack a decade ago for abusive monoplistic practices. Oh yes, and they payed up too.
The disregard for the rights of the individuals in the US is frightening. And when such an industry comes around with the self policing party line, they have about the credibility of Joseph Stalin preaching human right.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
That as such is not that bad, if there would have been an option for those signing up with the old rules to have their data removed.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The more important question to ask, is :
How do you feel if that medic sells your information to your insurance company, which in turn either doesn't renew your policy, or jacks up your premiums 15 fold?
Or (granted, this is far-fetched right now), how about two government thugs, trampling in your door and pulling you away from your loved ones to [insert-transmittable-desease]-camp, based on (potentially false) medical information?
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I fear, that this only holds up in theory. One of the things that really bug me (and that's a worldwide issue with corporations), is that corporate management is not really held responsible, nowadays. You don't really have personalities anymore; personalities like Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard, Henry T Ford, Kenneth Olson, or even Thomas J Watson. Founders and enterpreneurs, visionaries that actually cared about their people, their community and society (not that they are above dirty tricks in all instances).
In todays modern world you have marketing-slicked-mba-steeled-ruthlesness on the search for the fast buck, without having a horizon any further then the quarterly report, or the stock price.
Of course there are exceptions, but they are rare and few.
It's partially worse then that. Remember companies like United Fruit, who where directly responsible for the deaths of 1000s of indios, to pursue their fucking banana growing interests. They wisely changed their name to United Brands (Chiquita) and are probably soon to be extinct.
Or remember Chile 1973, where the CIA gracefully assisted in the murder of a democratically elected, albeit rather darkpink president. Being responsible for Mr. Pinochet and his reign of terror, murder and torture. All in the interest of Americas finest corporations.
Well yeah, I'd extend that to the whole world. But guess what: We - the consumer - can make a great start! We can cease buying from companies that behave unethical. The problem is that people are so fucking lazy and ignorant.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Kinda like us Slashdot posters deceiving other readers into thinking we actually READ the articles?
Heh.
krystal_blade
It will be easy to motivate our fellow man; there is hardly anything people treasure more than not being annihilated.
Can I consider this another flagrant violation of my rights by a large corporation with the help of the government when the large corporation in question has never made a profit and therefore really cannot be considered a large corporation?
Please answer, as I am a bit confused.... And I am vastly concerned with categorizing the many people that screw me over through the day so I really need to figure out which category I should check this off in before I go to bed.
Papa Legba come and open the gate
I wonder why it is that no bright entrepeneur has come up with the concept of using guaranteed privacy as a way to lure customers to their website. I mean given the choice between Amazon.com (which has already demonstrated a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth when it comes to users' privacy) and some other website which went out of its way to protect my privacy, I'd choose the latter. I know it would take a while for people to be convinced that "PrivacyUberAlles.Com" is really not going to violate people's privacy. However even before people are convinced a smart marketer should be able to play up an ironclad privacy policy to the advantage of the website. I'd even be willing to pay a little premium (as I suspect many people would) to have a better guarantee of privacy.
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
-- Stan Dunn
'Reports indicate that the phrase "All your atom are belong to us" was heard shortly before the blinding flash occured'
AC comments get piped to
Point 2 is a little more specific. If they transfer a section of business the associated customer data goes with it, which is fairly standard practice. Let's say they believe the RIAA lies that MP3s have killed CD sales and think that their profits are going to disappear, so decide to get out of that market sector. The company they sell the CD business to would almost certainly want, and get, the customer details of Amazon's (and now their) customers who had bought CDs.
Of course, what a company claims to transfer and what actually gets transferred are not necessarily the same thing. It's also very rare to see the two companies do the right thing ethically and give the customers the option of having their details removed before the transfer takes place.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
They say they aren't doing anything wrong because the agreement has been changed... ...sounds like my girlfriends Monopoly rules. She has an in-house rule that allows her to change rules depending on her circumstances in the game.
The one part she won't change though is the rule that stops anyone else from changing any rules.
Saying your OS is the best because more people use it is like saying MacDonalds make the best food
Wroot
Of course not!
Amazon will continue to dirty practices as long as they can make more money that way. But in the mean time they ruin it for others. I will opt-out of every mailing list because companies will not respect your inbox. They don't care if they bug you with too much email for a "low traffic email list". Now they will try to stop you unsubscribing ("it may take up to two weeks to process your request" bullshit).
Let's see some laws to protect people. How about a minium "one working day" unsubscribe response time? How about verifying that you want to be on the list in the first place?
The bottom line is that companies don't care about winning your trust (or anything else that doesn't directly involve parting you and your money).
Maybe the dot com crash will spur companies to return to a more people based mind set.
HA! I can dream.... thank you for reading my whinning.
--
M0571y H@rml355.
Shhhhh! Don't burst their bubble! The voice of the people is the voice of God!
I am for the complete Trantorization of Earth.
There was a line in one of the Star Wars movies where Darth Vader told Landow Kalrizian (guess at spelling) "I am altering the deal, pray that i do not alter it any further" Just like dealing with big biz
* Carthago Delenda Est *
just try getting off their list
Get a 'temporary' email address, change your email address in your Amazon preferences, delete temporary email address, wipe cookies.
Of course, this only applies if you don't actually want to shop at Amazon any more.
Whether the article is true or whether it was bought, you still somehow seem to have missed the point of the slashdot posts. I can only presume you haven't even read them. Slashdot does not, as you seem to think, have a "promote music piracy" agenda. There are many other more relevant, important arguments to this issue, which I won't discuss here, partially because its entirely offtopic, and partially because the points have already been made by hundreds of other people in other slashdot threads where it was on-topic. Go read them.
Tell that the thousands of jewish people that died in concentration camps because the government knew who did what where. (just one example of a government using private information to the ... shall we say 'disadvantage'? ... of the people)
Or how about the Japanese internment camps in the United States. Teachers that get fired because they are gay. People that get fired because they are not Christian.
When people stop discriminating, and enforcing their moral code on others, then we can start talking about a utopia where people can just be themselves, and exist in society. Till then, any idea that people dont need to hide anything is just a pipe dream.
The question is who do you trust with your information. I do not trust any government with that information. Nor do I trust corporations, although, since they are usually just looking to scam me, it is relatively harmless (now).
Yes, there are times and places where information is useful. (if it were not, it would not be information, but random data) But in that same scenario, that person who is healing you does not need to know your religion, your sexual preference, your surfing habits, the clubs you frequent, or your political party. Neither (for instance) does the persons boss. The information is not necessary, and if used, will most likely not be used to the benefit of the subject of the information.
Information has, in the past, been used for malevolent or selfish purposes. In the present it is being used for malevolent or selfish purposes. I do not believe that this will change.
-CrackElf
"Blake is an idealist, Jenna. He cannot afford to think." - Kerr Avon, Star One, Blakes 7
My brother shares the same sort of opinion, though a little more extreme: "We live in a police state". He says. "Why does that matter? If you're doing nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear". This is all well and good, but I should still have my privacy respected. I'm no criminal. But since when was hiding something or being guilty a prequisite for wanting your privacy respected? I don't believe I should even need to justify this to anyone, government included. When you talk about medics having lifesaving information, remember that you volunteered this information for the good of your own health, to a rightfully trusted group. The medical boards wouldn't dare sell it on because it would discourage people from giving the information in the first place, just like how most people give false information to internet companies and spamproof their addys, because people are sick of their information being abused.
"We kill to cure, with cures that kill" - Skinny Puppy
Dear Amazon Customer:
Not only were we stupid to do the price adjustments, we're really sorry about patenting the mouse click. We were just kidding about that one. As soon as we run out of vulture capital, we will close our doors, shutdown our website, and donate the patent on the mouse click to the FSF.
Sincerly,
Jeff Bezos
...at least until they become incovenient and I can then happily change them at whim, or ignore them and pretend they never happened.
But if anyone else breaks those rules and disadvantages me...
"This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
If you give anything of value to a coorperation,no matter what they say, you are guaranteed* to be screwed in the fine print. If there is an avenue to make money, it will be exploited.
: ... ...
from amazon's privacy terms
Information about our customers is an important part of our business, and we are not in the business of selling it to others.
As we continue to develop our business, we might sell or buy stores or assets. In such transactions, customer information generally is one of the transferred business assets
?WTF?
*this is not a guarantee
Of course they can. In the rest of the world, they often do. In Europe, the Data Protection people would have nailed these bastards to the wall. Soon, they'll be able to nail US companies for breaching the privacy rights of European based customers. Really, it's simple : the US government doesn't want to protect you from businesses, incase it costs the businesses money.