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 ....
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
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!
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.
That's a little harsh. After all, DoubleClick hired her to address the complaints that were coming from users. Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act. She isn't the worst possible choice.
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.
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
Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act.
No, her job was to help DoubleClick look like they were cleaning up their act.
In other words, she's the perfect choice for an administration that wants to look like they're respecting people's privacy.
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!