Privacy Policies Heading Downhill

ipfwadm writes: "There's a good article in the NY Times about various internet companies changing their privacy policies to allow the selling of users' information to marketers. The article mentions Yahoo and how they changed everyone's marketing preferences recently, among other companies (including everyone's favorite, Microsoft)." We already did a story on Yahoo's changes, but this one is notable because Yahoo's former vice president for direct marketing blasts the changed policy. And LorenzoV submitted a story from Wired about TrustE failing to censure Yahoo over their changes. Again.

Comments

What use *is* Truste anyway?

[cmuncey]

Truste, a nonprofit group financed by Internet companies that creates standards for privacy policies, agreed to endorse Yahoo's move after an extended discussion with the company. "I would not call what Yahoo did `best practices,' " said Fran Maier, the group's executive director. "To the extent possible, you would like companies to honor the preferences that were previously set by the users. But on the other hand, we don't want to tell companies they can't do something when their business strategy changes. We have to balance those things."

Let me get this straight -- Truste wants companies to follow privacy policies (which the companies themselves until they don't want to follow them anymore . . .

All that Truste ever really did was claim to police how well these companies disclosed and followed their own policies -- not dictate what their policies would be. IIRC, there already are laws about false advertising and misleading business practices. So, what is Truste and their "seal" besides a public relations exercise?

A desperate move by a desperate company

[bigmouth_strikes]

Seems kind of desperate when I company does something like this. It is a pretty good sign that its business model does not hold what the company promised their investors.

Take Yahoo! for instance, who recently reported a loss of $50M+ for the first quarter this fiscal year. They probably weighed the bad-will and complaints of changing their marketing policy against a projected short-term income for selling these addresses. Whatever $ figure they came up with as a result of resetting it's users settings , it's probably too high.

The strange thing is that when these policies change for the worse, people not only get upset, but they also a) become more reluctant to give accurate information when signing up b) opt-out as soon as possible. Apart from being able to sell a few more - lower quality - addresses, nothing is gained. The downside is that the intended audience for the advertising emails is less likely than before to read the emails, and also the accuracy of any demographics of the audience.

I think advertisers will realize sooner than later that the apparently millions of new Yahoo! customers were people that already opted out of advertising email, and therefore are a dead market not worth the new and higher price that Yahoo! demands

TrustE is stinking, fetid garbage

[sulli]

It shocks me that journalists take Trust(M)E seriously. From the NYT article:

Truste, a nonprofit group financed by Internet companies that creates standards for privacy policies, agreed to endorse Yahoo's move after an extended discussion with the company. "I would not call what Yahoo did `best practices,' " said Fran Maier, the group's executive director. "To the extent possible, you would like companies to honor the preferences that were previously set by the users. But on the other hand, we don't want to tell companies they can't do something when their business strategy changes. We have to balance those things."

So basically Maier admitted: they do nothing. Fine. Then they should get no news coverage, and not be used as a smokescreen by these fuckers.

attn. Yahoo

[sulli]

I am willing to pay.

Yes, I know this is heresy on the internet even now, but you need money, and I have money, so maybe we can make a deal. (and yes, I know this is slashdot and not yahoo, but perhaps a yahoo or other provider employee will read it.)

Here is what I have with Yahoo:

A Yahoo Mail account

Several Yahoo Groups that I administer

A "My Yahoo" page with various crap

I would be willing to pay:

$5/month for each Group I administer to make it 100% ad-free

$5/month for my Yahoo Mail account to make it 100% ad-free

Some reasonable, flat monthly rate amount to make all my yahoo browsing and usage 100% spam and ad-free

some modicum of service standards (notably on groups, which is quite unreliable at present)

certified, and not by TrustE, "we will never spam you ever" privacy

I have my credit card right here, yahoo. I bet many other users would pay for no ads. Get with the program!

Re:changing privacy policies

[Asprin]

But. you know, even *that* wouldn't be so bad if you could simply delete your account when you've decided you've had enough. That's the real screw job here; the worst effect of which is that I am now -- officially -- PARANOID!

Has anyone here ever tried to delete an account from E-bay or Microsft? Some (Yahoo?) will let you do it, but there are usually limits and procedures that imply they're selling your info on the way to the trashcan. Gah!!!!! I usually make up fake marketing info for those bogus logins (NYTimes, etc.), but I'm starting to think I should start doing that for legitimate sites as well.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to find my tin-foil beanie.

Re:Dyson Makes a Great Point

[LionKimbro]

I have a nice seat here at the corporate office for you and your ethical conscience. Can I interest you hiring you to find out how to manipulate people's consumer behavior into letting us exploit them?

Which seems more likely:

Situation A: It is largely the fault of everyone you know- your mother, your father, your brothers and sisters, your daughters and sons. Most everyone is to blame. When your mom got her Yahoo account, she should have fully research the implications of her online contracts. She should not only check "Don't send me unsolicited email", but she should also call up Yahoo to make sure that Yahoo won't try to advertise to her by phone, either.

Or situation B. Admit that we have better things to do, and that we expect- no, rely on, moral behavior from the people we do business with. That there are unspoken agreements to be followed. That even though your mom gave some information to get $5.00 off from a book sale, that she doesn't really expect, nor want, to have that information sold and resold.

Perhaps if the tradeoffs were more clearly written, your mom wouldn't have made the trade, but years of market research have shown that subtly describing is better than overtly saying, and your mom got conned. You have been conned, unless you defend such conning, and as such, carefully read every contract with a fine comb. Remember- Marketing: It's not persuasion, It's product awareness. (gleam!)

"It's right for others to be scammed, because they don't do the work to make sure that they themselves aren't scammed. They've got what's coming to them." Empowering. Indeed. That's right- everyone YOU know is a slacker. Your friend the pot head. Your friend the sports fan. Your friend the raver. Your friend the dad. Your friend the child. Slackers- all of them. If they give out their information, they've got what's comming to them.