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 ....

Comments

Puh-lease

[ChaoticChaos]

Will we start getting Homeland Security updates through banner ads? Will popup banner ads now be government endorsed? ;-)

Surely they could find someone with a better resume than that? Surely?

Re:Puh-lease

[bsharitt]

Now when you see a flshing red banner, it won't mean that you have won something, it just means a terrorist attack is immenant.

Re:Puh-lease

[fubar1971]

It's kind of like appointing Tommy Chong as the new Drug Czar.

Interviewer: Mr. Chong, what can you bring to this position?

Tomy Chong: Like.....Man....I know alot about....Hey, who's hungry?

Re:Puh-lease

[outsider007]

Will popup banner ads now be government endorsed?

yup, and not clicking them will be considered an act of terrorism.

Re:Puh-lease

[anthroboy]

"Don't think of these microchips that we're implanting in your neck as a 'tracking device'. That's a very ugly term. We prefer to think of them as 'Cookies'!"

Re:Puh-lease

[dogfart]

Dave's not here!

Asking the burglar to guard the house

[dtolton]

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.

Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house

[Amiga Trombone]

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.

Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house

[Hard_Code]

This one's expectations have been lowered. The program is working. Excellent.

Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house

[anthony_dipierro]

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.

Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house

[Tackhead]

> Kind of like Kevin Mitnick doing network security....WAIT A MINUTE!

I'd trust Kevin Mitnick with my network before I'd trust anyone from Doubleclick with my privacy.

The difference between Mitnick and Doubleclick? Only one of 'em is a lying shitweasel whose sole reason for existence is to the invasion of your privacy through clever social engineering.

Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house

[cheezedawg]

Yes, I'm aware.

Are you aware that nothing they are doing is against any laws? And IMO it should stay that way. There is no constitutional right to surf the net anonymously.

Bizzaro world.

[scrotch]

This whole presidency is like opposite day.

Re:Bizzaro world.

[sharkey]

This whole presidency is like opposite day.

Is it just me, or does anyone else want to bonk this guy with the Calvinball?

Re:Bizzaro world.

[Teknogeek]

I bonked him oppositely by NOT bonking him.

Start singing.

Re:Bizzaro world.

[Fishstick]

I'll say,

The pop-under that came up with the washpost page was strange in that it was a doubleclick ad page that errored on 404:

http://ad.doubleclick.net/www.washingtonpost.com /w p-adv/advertisers/popunders/reliaquote2_april03.ht ml

Error 404 Not Found

What are the chances?

I'm sure there's a IN SOVIET RUSSIA joke there somewhere, but I'm too tired to give it much effort this afternoon...

No, she sounds like a great choice.

[Welsh Dragon]

O'Connor Kelly sounds like a good choice for this position. DoubleClick was one of the most grevious privacy offenders on the internet, probably the absolute worst. They were so bad that even the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) got into the act. They're banner ads would abuse bugs in browsers to set cookies that would be able to track you from everywhere by using subdomains of base domains such as .co.uk (most browsers assumed you could set a parent if it was a high level domain like example.com or example.net just by counting the number of dots, but you can't register example.uk, only example.co.uk, so you could effectively set cookies for every purchasable domain) and other nasty tricks. They claimed that they didn't store personal data, but it was obvious that they were monitoring and corrolating everything they could, and the wide number of websites that used doubleclick meant they had a huge repository of data to mine.

O'Connor Kelly came in after DoubleClick was shown to be, well, evil when it came to privacy, to clean things up. Many changes have occured at DoubleClick to fix some of the problems. Given the amount of data DoubleClick had and what they did with it, O'Connor Kelly should have an excellent idea of what abuses you can do when you have that sort of information.

Hopefully she can step in and help prevent that sort of thing from happening at this level too.

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[DogIsMyCoprocessor]

Thanks for a voice of sanity. But you forgot to flame the submitter and and chrisd for not bothering to RTFA.

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[sdavid]

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.

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[tomhudson]

Of course, when you read the article you also get a popup ad... :-(

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[Anonymous Coward]

What's killer is a slashdot editor insulting doubleclick for privacy issues.

Ever checked the slashdot banners?

Yup, you'll find doubleclick there from time to time. Guess that shows what they think of their readership....

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[zdislaw]

And further...anyone who would expect the government, or anyone really, to hire someone to a position like this who would not simultaneously consider personal privacy issues and and public safety, is crazy. She is called a consensus builder by the personal security crowd. Hopefully she will build consensus that can help protect us from our enemies (and I use that term with no small amount of confusion as to who they are) while still protecting us from our own government.

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[ciphertext]

All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[sdavid]

True, but if this is to be a watchdog post then someone representing consumer or citizen interest is a more appropriate choice to head it. This doesn't mean that industry people shouldn't be represented, just not in the watchdog role.

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[reinard]

While you make a good point, the term of choice today ("cleaned things up") can be interpreted either way. It can be seen in such a way that she made DoubleClick be non-invasive, delete information they weren't supposed to have etc., OR it could also mean she figured out how to do what they want to do without breaking laws and calming down the privacy groups at the same time. My personal feeling is that it's probably a mix of both, but I would bet the the heavier side is on the latter interpretation. That's what scares me about someone like this getting into a position like this. Yes, she 'cleaned things up' at DoubleClick.. but that doesn't really say which side she's fighting for. It's a dubious choice at best.

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[anthony_dipierro]

All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?

Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[Tackhead]

> > All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?
>
> Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader

Or someone pro-industry like Bruce Schneier, Phil Zimmerman, Eben Moglen, or Lawrence Lessig. (My dream picks: Schneier first, Lessig second.)

I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not. Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[anthony_dipierro]

I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not.

Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second. Industry and privacy do collide, and it's important that a privacy czar have the proper priorities in mind.

Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)

Or like the Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Truth? Is it merely a coincidence that Doubleclick shares so many letters with Doublethink? :-)

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[Tackhead]

> Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second.

Exactly. As you say - if her mandate is to protect citizens' privacy, industry concerns should come second.

(Regardless of who's in power, there'll never be a shortage of pro-business, anti-privacy lobbyists to counterbalance any excesses on the part of even the most radical Privacy Czar :)

Re:No, she sounds like a great choice.

[PSaltyDS]

Quote: "What will they do next week? Put Pol Pot in charge of the Human Rights Commission?"

No. It was not the US, but the UN, that put Libya in charge of Human Rights, and put Iraq in charge of Disarmerment!

Karma: Low - Moderation bullies keep stealing my lunch money.

Its a little late

[Anonymous Coward]

For april fools jokes...

Oh.

Elvis was a NARC.

[RatBastard]

And Richard Nixon made Elvis a special narcotics officer. Gave him a badge, too.

Wrong department.

[mcgroarty]

Shouldn't this be "from the-foxes-guarding-the-henhouse dept." -- ?

Re:Wrong department.

[Pharmboy]

I tend to think that the best person to do the job probably IS someone who has abused the shit out of the system.

Who is better at helping you make your house burgular proof, a novice, or an ex con?

This guy may be somewhat of an ex con, but he has to work in the public view, so I say give him a chance. He is going to know more tricks about privacy violations that the rest of us put together. Its better to have him working FOR us, than ON us.

In other news..

[grub]

Ron Jeremy has just been named as successor to the pope. Unbelievable.

Hehehe

[Bendebecker]

Click on this banner for information on protecting your privacy!

Re:Hehehe

[CFrankBernard]

Or this flashing banner: "WARNING! Your computer is being monitored! Click here to find out anything on anyone."

Kevin Mitnick

[hey]

... or like hiring Kevin Mitnick as a security
consultant - ha ha. Oh wait that's not a joke.

Re:Kevin Mitnick

[Dyolf Knip]

... or like hiring Kevin Mitnick as a security

I assume you mean a computer or electronics security post? I would most certainly consider him an excellent candidate for the job. He simultaneously understands how bad security is, the potentially disastrous consequences that has, and more than most anyone else, the need to keep tech-law legislation and enforcement grounded on _this_ side of reality.

Is this really that ludicrous?

[Snowspinner]

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?

Re:Is this really that ludicrous?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this doubleclick exec came in after the wrongdoing, and straightened the mess out.

She could be the one to straighten the TIA mess out, as well.

This is a position that requires someone who knows about the fields of information collecting, data mining, and personal privacy. Not someone on a soapbox.

I'd be more concerned if it was some know-nothing anti-gub'ment clown from the EFF in a position of power, in the end. They'd make it illegal to write down someones first name, if they had their way.

Re:Is this really that ludicrous?

[Xerithane]

This DoubleClick exec doesn't think the things his company did were wrong. That's the difference.

Hi everybody, it's time to play, spot the idiot. The idiot has several characteristics, the most notable one is the inability to form a sentence without being absolutely wrong. For example, "...the things his company did..." is exceptionally wrong, because this DoubleClick exec happens to be a woman.

Proof that they don't know what they are talking about, nor that they know who this person is.

The second sign of an idiot is the ability to peer inside of others heads and illustrate what it is that they are thinking. For example, "This DoubleClick exec doesn't think ..." Aside from their actual lack of ability in doing such things, this is nothing of the case. As she was brought in to clean up DoubleClicks act after the FTC started coming down. After she came on board, DoubleClick cleaned up their privacy violations. This would illustrate that DoubleClick does care about privacy, after enforced to do so, and this executive happens to care very much about it, as it is her career.

There are many other signs to point to an idiot, these are just the most prominent. Stay tuned for next weeks, "When Idiots Post"

Re:Is this really that ludicrous?

[broter]

This is a position that requires someone who knows about the fields of information collecting, data mining, and personal privacy. Not someone on a soapbox.

RTFA. From it, you'd read:

"The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "

Though she is a self proclaimed geek at heart, there isn't much record on her personal stance. She brought Doubleclick back in line, and patched the major gaps in its public relations. This could be seen as a minimum to saving the company; so was it a strong privacy move, or simply providing good counsel for a client? Too early to tell.

I'd be more concerned if it was some know-nothing anti-gub'ment clown from the EFF in a position of power, in the end. They'd make it illegal to write down someones first name, if they had their way.

First of all, O'Connor Kelly won't be making law. That's a job for congress and the president (remember highschool government?). Secondly, an extreme privacy advocate in the whitehouse would probably do wonders to offset the DoJ influence that's there now; but then anything that GWB doesn't want to hear already probably won't be said.

In other news...

[japhar81]

Hoffa named Organized Crime Prevention Czar, and Hose, the neighborhood crack dealer has been dubbed War on Drugs Czar.

That is all.

why so speechless?

[jlusk4]

From the article:

The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology.

"One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups," Schwartz said.

Why would this leave you any more speechless than hiring Kevin Mitnick to do security for a large corporation?

Get some balance in your outlook.

John.

Re:why so speechless?

[Natalie's Hot Grits]

You are inherantly getting the wrong idea of the quote...

"One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups,"

The point of her job was to sell new (slightly less) invasive policy to privacy advocates. She did nothing to improve privacy within the company. She did damage control for predetermined policy decided upon by other people. Policy was forced upon the company by the courts. This has NOTHING TO DO with fighting for your privacy, and EVERYTHING TO DO with selling invasive and barely legal policy to the public.

According to the article, this is EXACTLY what she was hired to do for the government. In fact, near the end of the article, they explicitly state that she will likely be trying to sell potentially illegal government programs to congress for the bush administration.

She is effectively a lobbiest, hired by Bush appointed people, to sell illegal government programs like TIA and CAPPS II.

If you don't see anything wrong with this, I'd like to ask you wtf planet are you from? Now your tax dollars are going to a lobbiest that is trying to defend privacy policy that is illegal.

Well,

[frodo from middle ea]

Well It depends on what the meaning of word "privacy" is..

In other news...

[BlaKnail]

Alan Ralsky has been appointed Postmaster General.

Why's this bad?

[MojoMonkey]

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.

Doh!

[MerlynDavis]

That's just sad. Is this the same guy who was responsible for the plan to merge all of DoubleClick's databases together?

Somehow, I'm really not comforted by this choice for "Privacy Czar".

Next thing you know, Jeff Bezos will be running the Patent Office and Bill Gates will be in charge of the DoJ case against Microsoft.

Re:Doh!

[donutello]

That's just sad. Is this the same guy who was responsible for the plan to merge all of DoubleClick's databases together?

No, this is the gal who joined DoubleClick after they were caught by the FTC and worked to get it into compliance, vetting new policy with privacy groups. Privacy groups actually like this choice.

Did the editors even read the article?

[devphil]

Of course they didn't.

The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder[...]

"One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups,"

But hey, it's the /. editor's professional duty to not pay attention to any positive side of the story.

The story later mentions the infamous Total Awareness Office, and notes that "Congress said it will suspend funding for the Defense Department project unless the administration can demonstrate that it will not violate constitutional privacy rights." Naturally, that runs counter to the /. rule that "every privacy-related story must be in alarmist mode" so the editors always reject my submissions regarding Congress' threat to put TIA on hold.

Anyone have more details?

[aengblom]

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 settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran.

Anyone have more details about what her involvement was here. From this article, I'm not sure I can jump to the conclusion that she's evil. Just curious, this certainly makes you think anyway.
Thanks for answers! ;-)

Privacy Czar?

[Ryu2]

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?

Re:Privacy Czar?

[Catiline]

No, it makes perfect sense. We have a Drug Czar (John Walters) and a Terrorism Czar (Tom Ridge), both of whose jobs are to eradicate the things they are Czar "of". Therefore, the Prizacy Czar's job is to eradicate privacy. Ergo, the title makes perfect sense.

Do people still read articles around here?

[Dachannien]

In the article in the Post, a guy from the CDT gives her a pretty positive review. I don't think this is worthy of a Chicken Little-style panic attack.

Come on now people.

[Geekenstein]

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!

Gee

[Dukeofshadows]

This seems like Grandma asking the wolf to babysit Little Red Riding Hood.

Re:Gee

[nomadic]

Yeah, what's next, putting a former government official convicted of violating the Constitution in charge of spying on US citizens?

Selective editorializing....

[Orne]

In the cutting and pasting, the submitter clipped an important word from the opening paragraph...

"The former privacy officer of Internet advertising giant DoubleClick will be the Department of Homeland Security's first privacy czar, Bush administration officials said. "

Yes, she once worked for DoubleClick, but she only started AFTER the FTC sited them for privacy abuses. So she went in, cleaned them up, settled their lawsuits, and moved on. She now works for the Department of Commerce.

So, she ran the privacy clean-up for DoubleClick, and now she's picked to do the same thing, monitoring privacy for the government's latest fad, Homeland Security. Is this a problem? Or is it only a problem because she was picked by a conservative?

Re:Selective editorializing....

[pergamon]

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.

Re:Selective editorializing....

[smiff]

Or is it only a problem because she was picked by a conservative?

People are apprehensive because she was picked by Bush. She now joins the ranks of:

• Sec DOE: Abrahams, only former experience was proposing in congress to eliminate the DOE.
• Sec Interior: Gail norton, fromer mining industry lobbyist
• Head of SEC: former lobbyist/lawyer for big 5 accounting firms.
• Sec EPA: Christie Whitman, former governor of NJ, reportedly accepts donations from chemical industry.
• Sec Labor: Can you even name the sec labor, do we still have one?
• Sec Army: Former Enron top official, accepts free ski vacations from ENRON, then proposes to outsource the Utilities on Military bases to enron.
• Head of TIA: Admiral Poindexter, convicted of destroying evidence and lying to congress.
• and so on....

Thanks to goombah99 for the list.

Re:who were you expecting, the BonziBuddy??

[stratjakt]

First, he's a she.

And she's the he who came into doubleclick and made peace with the privacy community by changing operations there to protect privacy.

But of course, you have to read the article and generally have a clue what you're talking about to know that. I realize this is slashdot, so carry on ranting.

Re:He's perfect!

[ciphertext]

Actually O'Conner Kelly is a gal, not a guy. The article clearly states this with the pronoun "she" being repeated often. While the article doesn't say that the privacy community endorses her as a choice, it does say that they viewed her as a consensus builder. Not a negative connotation.

I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job!

[alispguru]

"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.

Re:I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job!

[Taldo]

Having a 'consensus builder' in this job would be a good thing. EXCEPT that the other side has no valid or legitimate position.

I refuse to accept a consensus with evil.

How about we come to a 'consensus' with spammers? 'Well we'll only send you ads we think you want.'

How about with abortion clinic bombers? 'Well we'll be more careful about which buildings we bomb.'

How about with technophobes? 'Well... you can research this but you can't do any actual experiments or release actual products.'

Let's not just have a knee-jerk reaction that 'consensus is good.' It isn't always. Consensus is good when it accomodates people who have reasonable goals and expectations. The Gestapo doesn't fall under this category.

This just in...

[PerlPo8]

Keith Richards to be appointed new drug czar.

Depends on the point of view...

[SerpentMage]

I think the reason why she was chosen is because she knows how to tread the line between legal privacy and illegal privacy. However, this is not what I would want in my government. Because it means, yet again I cannot trust the government....

Re:Depends on the point of view...

[zaphod123]

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.

Thanks, America...

[pixel_bc]

You keep making the property value of my land in Canada just keep going UP and UP. Keep up the good work!

Playing devil's advocate...

[geekwench]

Having read the article, I can't find anything that leads me to believe that Ms. O'Connor Kelly is guilty of anything othere than being employed by a company that was guilty of privacy abuses. It was stated, in fact, that she came on-board with DoubleClick after the investigation, and was responsible for cleaning up the company's act. How utterly reprehensible! :)
My actual worry is that this will be nothing more than an "honorary" posting; something that Ashcroft can point to and say "See? We've got someone working on privacy issues," while carefully not pointing out that she's not allowed to actually do anything about privacy protection. Although, the mention that the "Total Information Awareness" program has been - at least temporarily - derailed has me breathing a little easier.

Of course, if it does come down to a worse-case scenario, I'm going to have to unblock DoubleClick's cookies, or I'll be in big trouble!

Takes one to know one

[tetro]

Well this is obvious. Having a huge privacy violator take on other privacy violators is probably the best thing. The DoubleClick guy should know all the tricks of the trade of privacy violations.

Not so crazy...

[No Such Agency]

At least "the Hedgehog" wouldn't tell poor people with 10 kids in countries with 40% HIV infection that using condoms is a sin.

RTFA

[phyxeld]

As bad as slashdot has made it sound, after reading the article I think this is actually a good thing. From the text:

O'Connor Kelly is well acquainted with the often bitter debate over balancing privacy rights with other interests. 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.

chrisd is either intentionally trying to stir shit up with sensational misrepresentation of facts, or he just skimmed the article before posting it and didn't bother to get the whole story. In either case, I think this is definitely worthy of an Update: on the front page, noting that the individual in question was responsible for cleaning up DoubleClick's privacy catastrophies, rather than causing them.

I'm really glad I read the article on this post, because after only reading the slashdot version I had a very different opinion on the matter than I do now!

Re:RTFA

[KDan]

Yup, totally right. Mod the parent up and empty the article poster's karma for bad posting!

From the article, O'Connor only joined DoubleClick after they had become the privacy big bad wolf, and actually helped sort all that shit out. Notice you haven't heard that many DoubleClick horror stories recently...

Daniel

Re:RTFA

[feed_me_cereal]

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.

Re:RTFA

[platypus]

Yeah, and the exec from microsoft who cleaned up microsofts anti trust catastrophes should lead the departement of justice.

Please, the more data a company like doubleclick is can grab from/about people (legally), the more profitable they are. Do you really think the most important criterium she had to meet was being a privacy evangelist???
She just had to play one on TV.
OTOH, that probably make her a perfect fit for her new job.

Re:RTFA

[phyxeld]

You raise valid points.

Considering the number of convicted criminals appointed to important offices lately, it's difficult to believe anything that the administration does is in the public's best interest. I hope your suspicions are incorrect in this case, but I fear they're probably not. Time will tell...

Re:RTFA

[rcathcart]

Maybe there should be an Update: on the first page, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that chrisd isn't valid. The point remains that the chosen leader of the privacy division is not a privacy advocate, but rather someone who is good at cleaning up mistakes and doing what is necessary to comply.

Instead of choosing someone who is viewed as a consensus builder it would be better if the agency chose someone who zealously defends the privacy rights of citizens.

Re:RTFA

[Anonymous Coward]

O'Connor only joined DoubleClick after they had become the privacy big bad wolf, and actually helped sort all that shit out. Notice you haven't heard that many DoubleClick horror stories recently...

You know, this CAN be interpreted in at least two different ways...

Re:RTFA

[GigsVT]

That's only because DoubleClicks market collapsed out from under them.

Re:Big Bad Wolf

[carlos_benj]

And now, the new head of the avian agriculture department... the big bad wolf!

So, in your world is the story called, "The Three Little Chickens"?

In other news...

[Rai]

Bill Gates named Open Source Czar, Jack Valenti named VP of Consumer Fair-Use, and John Wayne Gacy named Director of Child-Protective Services.

this is no weirder than the fact that....

[wuchang]

the best rapper is white
the best golfer is black
the tallest NBA player is chinese
the swiss hold the america's cup
france is accusing the u.s. of arrogance
germany doesn't want to go to war
and the three most powerful men in america are named "bush", "dick", and "colon".

She's perfect for the job...

[hpa]

If you look at the article, it's pretty obvious that her job is all about defusing criticism due to privacy concerns without actually doing anything to stop the march towards an Orwellian society. For that, she's perfect... she successfully defused public criticism about DoubleClick without significantly hampering their effort to collect every little bit of information about you.

She's a bad choice.

[thatguywhoiam]

And yes, I did RTFA.

I will automatically assume that she does not (or soon will not) have the public's best interests at heart, and it has nothing to do with DoubleClick.

It has to do with the current Administration. I know, flame away, but the cronyism I've seen on display is... staggering. Absolutely staggering.

Yes, totally ludicrous

[apankrat]

How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?

Very different. Hacking and security is all about an *expertise*, which ultimately defines the quality of the work at the end of the day. In the privacy domain though the foundation is different - it's all about a *position*, the position of unconditional respect for individual privacy.

I seriously doubt one can suddenly develop such a respect if she was knowingly affiliated with doubleclick in the past. Too bad.

Irony

[kinnell]

Who says Americans don't have a sense of irony.

Re:what's a popup ad

[tomhudson]

It's

1. what you see when you're working from a temporary box (not your regular system) that's going to be upgraded in the next few hours ... :-)
2. an insidious method to improve hand-eye coordination and get all those net-potatoes to burn off extra calories despite themselves
3. a way to convince people to avoid your product like the plague
4. browser-based spam

In this case, it's reason #1 :-)

She's an interesting choice at the least...

[ralico]

Here is a quick bio. She's 34, so she's a young woman in what is still seems very much an old white man's game. Given her acedemic credentials, and where she is today, she's an overachiever. This may be a very good thing if she is has enough moral backbone to stave off corrupting special interests.
Call me cynical and sterotyping, but I think this is better than having yet another old, corrupt white guy in someones pocket.

Re:Orwell must be laughing his ass off....

[maxpublic]

"Yet another example of the Bush doubleplusgood government in action! Of course this is right in line with an administration that fakes 'popular' Iraqi support of the American 'liberation' of Baghdad yahoo.com [yahoo.com].

Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups.... "

The beauty of having a karma score far beyond anything you could ever actually need is that you can take a post that's been marked as a 'troll' by some ignorant right-wing looney Bush boot-licker and repost it - with a score of '2'.

Sometimes, enraging the conservative pricks who prowl Slashdot is enough to put a big ol' grin on your face....

Check out the article, though. The 'popular' Iraqi demonstration was actually staged by the Bush government, apparently because the Iraqis themselves are in no way celebrating the fact that they've been conquered. Imagine that!

And this is the government we entrust to watch over our privacy? Lying sacks of shit, scum of the Earth fuckwits who pull crap like this? And then appoint a Doubleclick lackey to 'watch over' our privacy? Wake up, shitheads - our privacy is *already guarranteed* by the Constitution. The only thing an ad company executive can do is find ways to circumvent protections that are more than 200 years old.

Max

You're missing a *very* important point

[jtheory]

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.

It could be worse...

[Kevin Burtch]

Bush could name the former chief of security of Microsoft as the Cyber Security Czar... oh wait, he did.

Re:reminds me of something...

[crazyphilman]

Attention citizens of New York!

This is an update from the ministry of truth. You may cease your labor for two minutes to enjoy this announcement. Ignite your Freedom Cigarettes now.

The war with Eurasia is near an end, with several more cities having fallen to the allied armies. The downtrodden people of Eurasia are welcoming us with open arms, and Big Brother assures us that the war will be over shortly. Support your government! Buy Freedom bonds today.

Several agents of the terrorist Goldstein were apprehended as they tried to purchase toilet paper in the East Village today. It is not known for what purpose the toilet paper was meant, but it is suggested that the use of outdoor toilets be suspended until the scope of this problem is fully evaluated. The Terror Alert Level is as of this moment raised to FUSCIA.

Literacy rates in Sector IV have risen by 25%; malnourishment in Sectors I through VI has been reduced by 12%. Students have reported that belonging to the Freedom Scouts has increased their overall skill level, and had a direct effect on raising their IQs. Big Brother will visit the Scouts in New York this afternoon for a motivational speech and a nap.

The Ministry of Privacy announced a new initiative this morning, which will end the plague of net divers who do not permit Freedom Cookies to be registered on their machines. It is now considered an act of treason to bar cookies from your browser. The consequences for such activity are doublePlusUngood, citizens. Enable Freedom Cookies today!

FOR THE COMMONWEALTH! FOR BIG BROTHER!

Citizens, extinquish your cigarettes, and resume your labor.

Real is Life More Interesting

[J-Hawker]

Why spend so much time coming up with absurd possibilities when the UN provides better examples. Libya 'right for human rights job' and Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference. Face it, the Dead Milkmen were right, we're all veterans of a f@#%ed up world.

Quick Question...

[Kintanon]

How is this any different from AT&T hiring someone who hacks their network to be in charge of their security?
It seems that hiring someone who is good at compromising the system that is protecting you to make that system better is one of the things that the "geek" community recommends. How does this differ? The company she ran was good at compromising peoples privacy so who would better know how to protect that privacy?
Any argument you use against her can equally be applied to someone who compromises the network security of a business and is then hired by them.

Kintanon

What's up with the czar thing anyway?

[wmelick]

You know, why do we call these positions "czar" whatever? What, are we living in pre-revolutionary Russia? Who started the whole czar title thing? Wasn't there just one czar in Russia too? Or maybe that's Czar with a capital C? Hmmm....

Almost as bad as...

[NecrosisLabs]

..naming James Watt as secretary of the interior. Oh wait, that's been done. how about...
..having Kissinger head a probe about Intelligence failures. Oh yeah. Ok, let's try
..having John Ashcroft head the Deparment of Justice.

Ok, that's it. I give up.

You were supposed to wait a week.

[twitter]

This would illustrate that DoubleClick does care about privacy, after enforced to do so, and this executive happens to care very much about it, as it is her career.

Excellent! After smashing someone for daring to guese the intentions of others, you state them yourself. Did you ever consider alternate ideas?

How do you know that Doubleclick cares about privacy? The indications are that they did not, you know 12 state investigations, a federal investigation and a private class action suit. They settled those suits, but we don't have any real indication they changed what they were doing do we?

Now what would a company that does not care about privacy have to hire someone for? Perhaps to lie for them? We don't know that, all we know from the article is that she was a "consesus builder". What the hell is that? Someone that convinces me that it's OK for double click to sell my credit history if they keep quiet about my dental records? Hmm. Yes indeed, I suspect someone who could work for a company like Double Click is dishonest. Dishonest or a 34 year old puppet.

Now what do the Feds want her for? To advocate the Total Information Rape Act? CAPUT? No thanks, I've got better use for my money than another liar.

The old "revolving door" again...

[aquarian]

This is a perfect example of what's known as "the revolving door" between industry and government. Traditionally, the big problems have been in the defense and heavy construction industries, so many computer people probably don't understand it.

Here's how it goes -- an industry bigwig is selected for a regulatory post because of "expertise" in a certain area. After all, they have all this experience, and have risen to prominence, so they must be well-qualified, no? They work for the government for awhile. They make contacts. And if they "play ball" while in their government position, they get a great job offers from private industry when their term expires. Sometimes these offers are innocent and genuine, but sometimes they're outrageous, obvious, and blatant rewards for having done someone's bidding while in office. And there's every shade of gray in between.

As I mentioned, the most common industry for this is heavy construction. It's most common at the local level -- particularly with construction managers who work as city/county inspectors, and then construction managers, or consultants, again. This is actually illegal in many places, but there are many ways to get around the letter of the law -- shell companies, etc. Sometimes it's so bad that when an inspector gets fired for obvious, intentional lack of diligence, he shows up the very next day on the same jobsite, on the contractor's payroll, making three times what the position would normally pay -- thumbing his nose at his former bosses. Nice "reward," eh, without having to take an actual bribe!

Of course, construction is an extreme example, being a somwhat bare-knuckle industry anyway. But the same conflict of interest exists everywhere else. And no matter how subtle the conflict of interest may be, the effects of it are felt by us all, and our society suffers.

Other areas of our society which could be very easily ruined by such conflict of interest are adversarial by design. Our courts, for example -- lawyers don't flip-flop between representing one side then the other. Good journalists aren't supposed to get too chummy with the people they're reporting on. Economist Milton Friedman has often commented on staying out of industry, worrying that it might corrupt his science, or give the appearance of doing so. Likwise, regulators should maintain the same distance from the industries they're regulating.

Reminds me of a "Rockford Files" episode...

[Hamster Lover]

Everyone remembers the Rockford Files, right? Ok, maybe not, but I digress...

This show appeared in the later 70's and it concerned a group of business men that wanted to create a "super database" of everyone in this computer system located next to an airport. Rockford busts the case and captures the "criminals" in the end, of course. The show ends with a quick blurb about the dangers of computers and privacy.

What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.

Who's the real threat to our way

[Archfeld]

of life....the correct answer is US, and our lack of awareness and general apathy. We've allowed idiots to take control, not because we don't see what's going on, but because it doesn't directly affect me....

Announcement

[4of12]

Washington, April 16, 2003

Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer announced today that President Bush has, after consulting with VP Dick Cheney, other members of his cabinet and unidentified experts from the poultry industry that The Fox would be put in charge of The Henhouse.

"We think The Fox will lend invaluable experience to the management of The Henhouse," said Fleischer. "He has decades of experience with both eggs and with chickens, a breadth of experience that most other candidates just don't have."

Re:RTFA (convicted criminals in office)

[mabhatter654]

The real problem is that many of these people broke laws written specifically by congress to tell them to stop or not take specific actions!

This isn't a "accounting" issue like whitewater, or a "technical purgury" issue like monica. Most of those things for most people with any money would go away with a phone call or two--those were specifically political. Poindexter on the other hand, was specifically banned [by a law just for him!] from helping contras [I believe]. He not only performed the acts, but covered up for the president and vice who ordered it insite of Congress! Again, we're still paying the price for that whole arms-for-hostages thing because at the time much of that money went to people like Saddam! If his testimony was subject to the scrutiny of Clinton's he'd still be rotting in prison!

Several high-level appointees have specifically broken the law for the white house in the past. These are people that have broken the law and thrown it in the face of congress, specifically after being told what to do! This isn't missed taxes, or an epa fine, it's willful and deliberate. For starts, congress has no place confirming them at all, but these may not be confirmed seats--funny how that works.

Too Many Czars

[buckminster]

Is anyone else concerned about the increasing number of government sanctioned Czars in America? At what point did we become a Czarist nation?

A bit of topic but...

[Jarden]

I just found this page which lets you opt-out of doubleclick storing personal cookie info about you. Most of us probably already block doubleclick cookies but maybe someone will find it useful.

This is like making ...

[Kosi]

... Osama Bin Laden the secretary for religious understanding, tolerance and freedom. ... D. Rumsfeld the commissioner for disarmament ... GWB the the minister for civilian rights and social fairness or international cooperation of equals