Slashdot Mirror
Former DoubleClick Exec Named Privacy Czar
tsu doh nimh writes "A former executive for banner ad giant DoubleClick has been selected to be the first ever privacy czar for the Department of Homeland Security, says this Washingtonpost.com story." Just leaves you speechless ....
In a related move Osama Bin Laden has been appointed as the
first ever Terror Czar. Bin Laden was not immediately available
for comment.
From the article it sounds like this post will be more of a
public relations position than anything. Rather than appointing
someone who worked for a company notorious for trampling
people's privacy rights, IMO they should have appointed someone
who has a record of protecting an upholding our right to
privacy. Had they appointed someone with that type of track
record maybe the cabinet could have had an honest dialogue about
privacy rights in general, rather than simply a discussion about
how to phrase the wording of a news release so it doesn't freak
out the privacy rights groups.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
Before the huge storm of criticism starts, let's ask ourselves:
How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?
The we like Kevin Mitnick more than we like ad agencies is not sufficient grounds for an objection. What I want to know is, why shouldn't we hire knowledgable people away from doing what we don't want, and into doing what we do want?
Philip Sandifer's academic website
From the article:
"She joined DoubleClick in February 2000 after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data. DoubleClick also was embroiled in similar investigations by 12 state attorneys general and several class-action lawsuits.
DoubleClick settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran. "
Sounds to me like some changes were make by O'Connor Kelly and privacy was improved. I'd say it takes a pretty strong person to go into a company as deep in it as Double Click and improve it.
----- "Blame the guy who doesn't speak English." -- Homer J. Simpson
Thanks for answers!
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
Even the title of Privacy Czar for the Homeland Security department seems oxymoronic. Isn't the direction the USA is taking with Homeland Security towards giving up your privacy rights, with all these new laws passed?
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Once again, we have another /. double standard. How many times have I watched people here applaud when a former cracker gets appointed to a top position in security?
But God Forbid someone who knows the ins and outs of privacy abuses, a person who would know BEST how to protect against them, gets the chance to do so. They're evil and will always be evil!
Your point is well taken, and she may well have been effective at improving Doubleclick's behaviour. However that doesn't change the fact that she comes from an industry that uses private information for their own profit. No matter how personally beyond reproach she may be, she's still a wolf amoung sheep.
"Consensus" is what got us into the current privacy mess! The current "compromise" on most personal financial data is that data holders have to tell you what their sharing policy is (in dense legalese text which usually has "we will share with basically anybody who will pay us for it" buried in it) and give you the chance to "opt out".
If the regulations had been made with consumers in mind at all, the default would have been to not share data and to only allow sharing when people opt-in. This would make private data a liability rather than an asset.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
At least "the Hedgehog" wouldn't tell poor people with 10 kids in countries with 40% HIV infection that using condoms is a sin.
Freedom: "I won't!"
I just finished reading the article, and I had simmilar feelings, but perhaps not to the extent of yours. The article doesn't say she neccesarily "cleaned up" DoubleClick, or that she was hired by DoubleClick to do anything other than whitewash the company in the face of federal scrutiny. Perhaps she has been chosen to do the same for the government now? I don't really know one way or the other, all I have to rely on right now is the history of both DoubleClick and the Bush administration, neither of which are remotely good in the face of privacy. REMOTELY. All I know is, if the Bush administration is looking for a privacy advocate, there's plenty of places they can go other than DoubleClick that would make MUCH MUCH more sense. Like, say, the people who raised the suit against DoubleClick in the first place.
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Yes, its still possibly (and IMHO, probably) a problem.
She ran cleanup, meaning she got DoubleClick out of the FTC doghouse. Her job was to save DoubleClick because they did things they shouldn't have, not to save the privacy rights of consumers.
I sincerely doubt her position is there to protect the privacy rights of US citizens, but rather just to tell the Homeland Security Department how far they can go according to the law. If someone is trying to push through new legislation that encroaches on privacy rights, don't expect this person (in this position, not this woman in particular) to lobby to stop or even challenge it.
To directly address the most common analogy I've seen in the comments: This is less like calling in Kevin Mitnick to help beef up security, and more like a hacker/cracker calling in Mitnick's lawyer to advise him on ways to stay out of trouble even though his goal is still to try to get away with hacking into systems.
All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?
Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
I read the exact same paragraph and it *confirmed* my concerns.
Look at this in perspective: DoubleClick is a huge organization that is having serious problems with lawsuits because it's trampling all over people's privacy. They bring in O'Connor Kelly, who does a good job settling *most* of the lawsuits (note: settling != defeating) and starts a new division to help keep DoubleClick safe from future lawsuits. DoubleClick continues to do as much data-mining and collection as it possibly can (because that's STILL the core of its business) but now it avoids most of the unpleasant and costly public lawsuits.
Now substitute "the US Govt" for "DoubleClick". Fits pretty well, doesn't it? It doesn't sound *too* bad... until you consider that they're still planning on doing as much privacy invasion as they can possibly get away with... she'll just help them walk that wavy line.
Think about the difference if the new privacy advisor were, say, one of the "12 state attorneys general" who were prosecuting DoubleClick, or someone involved in the "several class-action lawsuits" from the other side. Or ANYONE who had privacy advocacy experience from the victims' side.
There are only 10 types of people: those who understand decimal, those who don't, and, uh, 8 other types I forget.
In case you missed your history classes, the US "Founding Fathers" didn't trust government. In fact, they felt that government was not trustworthy.
That is why there was the attempt to put all the checks and balances in place.
:q!