Slashdot Mirror
Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy
An anonymous reader writes "Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy details the tactics of retailers and marketers to sell customer data. Examples include promising not to sell consumer data, but then 'renting' the data, and the use of shopping cart software with different privacy policies than the merchant."
The biggest problem with internet privacy issues in the past has been the lack of ability to track sources of information for advertisers - one had no idea whether advertiser XYZ got your address from Amazon.com or Bobscomputers.biz. Although there are several new pay and free e-mail systems now for identifying individual sources, such systems are hardly ubiquitous and none exist as-yet for truly identifying sources of telephone numbers, snail-mail addresses, and other sensitive personal information. For this reason, consumers often find it extremely difficult to police these firms and take their business elsewhere and the first alternative to self- and consumer-policing to come to mind is actual legal enforcement with actual investigative action against firms - something beyond the consumer-helping-consumer nature of the Better Business Bureau. It is here that the complaint about lack of privacy in online transactions, while very valid, is in part hypocritical coming from the Slashdot community, one which - with the interests of protecting the freedom of the internet and keeping any one nation from declaring some kind of jurisdiction over the Internet - is always mixed in its views of governmental 'net policing. Perhaps an easy compromise can be found in this case, or maybe an entirely new approach must be taken altogether...
Piracy over profit!
"People choose privacy over web firms"
I'm _so_ glad I have my own domain, and can create and destroy email addresses willy-nilly. I haven't seen a piece of spam in about a year, now, and that's with_out_ any spam filtering methods at all.
If it's not already illegal, this should be, especially if there is no notice of any particular size informing the user that the change is present. If a shopping cart is linked from the primary site, such that the users of the primary site must use the shopping cart, the terms of service should propagate with it too. This could set some interesting legal precedents if it's explored.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
What next?
Businesses choose profit over customer safety?
Businesses choose profit over employee safety?
What about the obvious?
Businesses choose profit over anything else!?!
I am glad the Washington Post is on top of this. I doubt I would have ever figured this out on my own.
ACK
No.
But they will rent it for a nice price.
I think of the Cheshire Cat.
...don't buy anything advertised to you by spammers.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Do they promise to delete/not use the data after they stop renting it? What if someone wants to rent it for 999 years?
"Recently, for example, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation advertised that its list of donors, including postal addresses, was for rent"
He gets free fetuses AND the ability to sell people's personal info! Come on!!!!
Thank you, anonymous submitter, for linking to the printer-friendly version. While the Post might get peeved for the loss of ad revenue, reading the story like this is much easier on the eyes.
I don't know of too many companies that have the following business plan:
...
1. Make product
2.
3. Privacy!
All humor aside, I think it's time we just start over. We need an Internet2 (wait... already taken -- Internet3!) that only allows individuals and well-behaved companies onto it... Either that, or we could just move back to Gopher...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
To parents interested in buying the popular Hooked on Phonics learn-to-read programs, the company made a firm promise on its Web site: It would never sell or rent their personal information to other marketers. But that pledge was empty.
The children are Hooked on Phonics, and now the parents are Hooked on Phony Emails.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I'll pay $5 for the name of that anonymous submitter.
Why did he say psycho ex-boyfriends and not ex-girlfriends? Is Chris hinting at something here? Or am I drawing conclusions where they don't exist.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
In the end they'll claim fiscal responsibility and shareholders will cheer. This sentiment couldn't be older.
Nutshell: Greed rules the day, and we celebrate it. It's what we promote here in the US. yay...
Screw privacy... there's no money there.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
Let's face it, the Internet is just not private. The Internet was conceived in a semi-private environment, absolutely bereft of retail commercial incentive, when the primary concern was sharing information.
I work in information privacy in health care. We are faced with the competing interests of sharing information and protecting confidences. It is a zero sum game between the two, to get one you have to give on the other.
I shop quite a lot on the Internet, but I do it as a special user on my systems so that my e-mail address, browser caches and cookie stores are distinct from those I use when otherwise communicating with people for non-commercial endeavors. I always lie about my gender, income, region and interests to web forms seeking demographic information. I use a special
credit card for Internet purchases which always go to my work address.
Does this give me absolute privacy? No, but it keeps me from being low-hanging fruit. I realize not everyone has the opportunities I do, but there are some things anyone can do.
We aren't entirely powerless in this game. Like all other technological challenges, you just have to keep ahead and don't let your predilection for convenience and free stuff lead you into stupid disclosures.
The best way to do is to be.
When you sign up for a service or whatever takes your email, use the webaddress of the site as the mailbox (EX. for /. www.slashdot.org@dugnet.com).
Makes it real easy to find out who's selling your "information".
I know I have real media to thank for a large portion of my spam (collect from not-me@dugnet.com addresses to filter automatically into the spam filter).
Needless to say, makes spam filtering a little easier and makes sorting a breeze.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the 257th Rule of Acquisition says "Sell to your customers first, then sell your customers!"
JOHN Q. SPAMMER: Hey, can I buy about 100,000 email addresses from your database?
ONLINE RETAILER: Sorry, we have a strict privacy policy that says we don't sell customer information.
JQS: C'mon, I'll give you a penny per ten. That's $100.
OLR: Our users are not for sale.
JQS: $250. I'm cutting my own throat here.
OLR: Well... our bandwidth bills were $360 last year....
JQS: $350, then. Final offer.
OLR: But, our privacy policy....
JQS: Yeah, yeah. Tell you what, I'll give you the list back in a month. And I won't keep any backup copies. Promise.
OLR: Whew, glad that clears my conscience.
I fail to see these companies can be restricted from selling customer information, but 'renting' it out is perfectly legal. When you enter into an agreement with these companies, aren't you technically 'selling' them your information in exchange for goods or services? Thus, 'renting' aka resale should also be prevented.
Think of it like Blockbuster. They pay premium wholesale prices on movies so they can rent them out, which is why you're charged $100+ for a missing/over-late rental instead of the expected $14 or so you'd pay at Best Buy or wherever.
You sign a contract saying that you will not use the data when the rental is over. If you do, you might get away with it, but you stand a good chance of being sued into oblivion.
If someone wants to rent it for 999 years, they just sign a 999-year contract, I imagine.
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Companies choose profit over privacy? Well no ****.
Companies choose profit over everything.
Note: this is said about companies as a whole. Similarly, even though you can have a ton of smart individuals in the world, people will always remain stupid as a whole.
I assert that my comment is only my opinion, not that of any employer, past, present or future.
Am I the only one who read this as
Web Firms Choose Profit Over Piracy
Now that would've been worthy news.
Must-not-watch TV!
If my email address is that damn valuable, it seems to me that I should be the one making money from it.
Why couldn't I create a licensing program for my personal info to sell licenses to marketers for, say, $10 million US per contact attempt.
It's my f***'n email address, after all, so I should be able to set the price. They should be at least as responsible with my information as other businesses are with their inventory.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
0 1 - just my two bits
This is why a California Financial Privacy Initiative is going to have to go before the voters. All the attempts to get a financial privacy measure thru the corrupt California legislature have failed due to opposition of big financial institutions and insurers, who are big contributors to the Democrats who run the place. We need something like this at a national level as well, but I'm not going to hold my breath till we get one through a Congress that lives with its hand out continually. A measure like this at the state level is better than nothing, at least.
...to learn that the Hooked on Phonics company was promising not to sell or rent customer's information while advertising it for sale in a trade magazine. Until I read the reason - "A company spokeswoman said the firm was simply slow to update its policy."
That's a big relief, because I was a little slow in updating my checkbook, and now that I think about it, I simply forgot that the account I wrote their check on was closed in 1996.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
The shopping cart is a tool the vendor uses to check out customers, if the polices change when using the tool of the vendor this is fraudulent. Even if notification is given its still unethical as some places have no customer service to call. and if they do they are obliged to extend any online deal to any phone sales if the customers disagrees with the change in policy. This is effectively a privacy bait and switch.
Is there any way that I could make my personal information (legally) into intellectually property? That way I could sue people who miss-use or sell this information for profit.
-makoffee
Actually the best terms I've seen have been ones that allow the site to share my information with partners, have an opt in for any unsolicited information, and *REQUIRE* any partner to have the same terms of service regarding the information.
Perhaps we need a GPL privacy policy?
I've been swashdotted -- Elmer Fudd
I think you're right, having done one of those click-thru privacy contracts, it doesn't seem legal for them to claim you're using someone else's software and hence their contract. Can my carpenter say that I am bound by Black and Decker's contract instead of his if he uses their drill? I think not! It's amazing how ridiculous some of this stuff appears if you look at it in other situations.
It seems as if a plaintiff is necessary here to get anything done. EFF seems to be all busy with filesharing right now as it happens though. ;(
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Q: What do you call a company that doesn't make a profit?
A: Fucked.
The main reason that most companies exist is to profit from their customers. Without making money from their customers, companies cannot pay their staff, their suppliers, their rent or their other bills and soon fold.
No matter how well-intentioned or altruistic the principles of the company may be, any company that fails to generate revenue is doomed to failure - that's a fact that's pretty obvious to most of us but one that seems to have only just become clear to the management teams of a lot of dotcoms.
Besides selling me something (or, better still, getting me to sell it for them on their behalf), there's only one way that a company can profit from me and that's by selling what it knows about me, my lifestyle and my shopping habits.
I'm sure a lot of people would rather the online bookstore that they use went bust rather than even sharing one tiny shred of personal data but that's just not going to happen. After all, when it talk to its advertisers, a company will always give a generic breakdown of its customers, their typical spends and their buying patterns, and that's just as true of etailers as it is of retailers.
Clearly, a company that will sell every last personal detail is not the kind of company that you want to deal with. But one that just describes you as customer a, living in country b, buying c items a month and spending an average of d on them isn't doing your privacy too much harm when it aggregates that data with that of 100,000 others before passing it on to a third party.
That being said, I'll say what I've said countless times before: companies will always put profit before people.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The internet is a public resource, like a city street. You step on that street, you can't control who takes your picture from a window across the street or who sees you or watches what you do.
That doesn't excuse the slimeball tactics of 'renting' your information when their policy says it will never be sold. In my opinion, recieving money for you info equates to a sale. The term sale doesn't necessarily mean transfer of ownership.
There will always be unethical people and companies that will stoop to anything to make a buck in this greed driven world we live in. You cannot escape from it, but you can limit your vulnerability by being away of the public nature of the net and people's desire to exploit others for their own gain and adjusting your activities accordingly.
Especially with small vendors, I bet it never even occurred to the people who run many of their sites that their shopping cart operator is collecting and selling information on their own. It's just a service they bought.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
When I first read that headline I thought it said "..choose profits over PIRACY"
I guess I just keep hoping...
This sort of thing will continue unchecked until a law can be written stating that an individual owns the exclusive rights to their personal data and information, and may lease or sell a portion of those to a company only by their explicit consent.
Think of the industry that could result from that! A consumer that made a dime, or a dollar even!, every time some company wanted to use his name in a database, would be a happy and informed consumer indeed.
Kremvax - lifelong consumer of goods and services
--- Little Atomo - The Amazing Thinking Robot from Atomocom! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIP9KisHi4k
...some people will do it. It's money, and it's more money than a lot of people realize.
For example, I run a site that's pretty damn big, something like 300,000 accounts so far. I've already gotten several "business inquries" from direct marketing companies asking if I'd like to "rent" my customer data to them -- and some of these people are offering upward of 5 cents per user. And I don't have to tell you that a nickel here and a nickel adds up.
I haven't sold my user lists and never will, but rest assured that if I wanted to there is a huge market of companies that would be willing to let me name my own price.
And that is why companies do it.
Hilary Rosen's speech was about her love of money and her desire to roll around naked in a pile of money.
Sir,
OSDN will gladly accept your offer of $5 for the real name and address details Anonymous User. To facilitate the transaction, please call CmdrTaco at 1(800) SLASHDOT ext. 666. I look forward to hearing from you.
CmdrTaco.
PS. If you are interested, we also have an additional 600,000 names and email addresses sorted by interest, available for rent at unbelievably low rates.
While I don't condone what Hooked on Phonics does, I wonder if they do something similar if you call their 1-800 number and you give them your mailing/shipping address. One of the big rationales behind store credit card offers and discount cards is obtaining customer information.
Does it really matter if someone knows I'm 25, white, have no kids, live alone, and make a decent salary in the computer industry, or that I tend to buy things online, or that my email address is raehl311@yahoo.com?
... big freaking deal.
Yeah, I get a pile of spam, so I just delete it. Annoying? Yeah, but so is weeding all of those credit card offers out of my mail (1-5 PER DAY) generated just because credit card companies have *ALL* of my information, including every debt and my SS#, from my credit report.
If someone wants to screw with my life, or steal my money, or pretend to be me, they can just grab my credit card receipt next time I'm at a restaurant. If someone wants to pay to have my address along with the address of 100,000 other people who purchased a certain product on Amazon.com or wherever last year and send me marketing email
Get over yourselves people - you're just not that interesting. Nobody cares about your information except in an attempt to get you to buy stuff. IF you're buying porn, you're no more interesting than the other millions of people buying porn, if you're taking viagra, you're no more interesting than the other millions of people taking viagra, and if the guy at the grocery store's central office knows you buy a case of Depends every month - they don't care about that either. Your privacy is protected because you are just as uninteresting as hundreds of millions of other people out there.
paintball
Anyone notice an irksome trend amongst retailers? "Sure, we sold you down the river, but we're not evil, we're just dumber than squirrels. Tough break, but I'm sure none of the five hundred spamhausen we sold your kid's details to will be as unscrupulous or idiotic as us!"
Since when did "We screwed up, but, meh." become an acceptable excuse?
Oh, wait, since Enron and Worldcomm. I forgot. Sorry, my bad. :(
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Or whatever you call it in this case..
They say everything is private. So you give them the info. Then later, they want to change their policy, so they just notify everyone they are going to give away the info unless they are told not to.
The thing is.. My deal with them is ALREADY DONE, and it was under the agreement that the info not be shared. I should not have to do maintenance to keep it that way.. THEY should have to get my express permission to share that information at a later date.. nut just send me a note and make me, again, state I don't want it released.. because we already agreed to that.
I guess it's not marketing.. but it's like how some cable companies would give everyone the new, upgraded package of shows, then expect anyone who didn't want to pay extra once the trial period was up to notify them, or else get billed. I know in BC the courts ruled it an illegal practice. People already agreed to a package.. you can't start changing it. Of course, the cable company caved anyway before the courts were done when a thousand or so people called in to cancel their cable immediately in protest. That gets their attention.
Changing a policy regarding that information should be clearly illegal.
Don't trust *ANYTHING* on the internet.
You are at least submitting you IP address and what type of computer you are using when youre on the internet, so if you want privacy, i suggest this
Why not just use Spam Gourmet? It allows you to make disposable email addresses that forward to your main address. The addresses are unique based on a key word which helps you know where your spam came from.
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
people are afraid to shop online. Advertising is just the start; some porn companies sell cc card data and the offshore buyers commit cc fraud. It's happened to a few people I know and they get $20-200 charges their cc company won't cover.
Online retailers will get away with anything they can and then some, doesn't matter if it's legal or not. The FTC lost it's teeth awile ago and unless that changes things can only get worse.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Hooked on Phonics customers never read it anyway.
paintball
I keep just about everything on my PC encrypted; I was hacked once and the prospect of some anonymous joe having not only my name and address, but my complete work history (aka my resume) and being able to pin that to all the other crap on my computer (ie old porn) made me uncomfortable enough to take the initiative of encrypting all my user data so if I were hacked again about all they would find is a desktop with lots of programs installed and lots of MP3s. Being hacked worries me because that presents a real life security issue; doubleclick having my tastes in TV and clothing does not present a real life security issue.
Does bob's baby world knowing the age of my child present a real life security issue? No. And if I don't want bob's baby world knowing my name and address there's no one twisting my arm to give them that info - and there are already laws on the books preventing "Hooked on Phonics" from giving bob that info. And if I should decide to let bob have my name and address, I think it's safe to say "bob" could easily discern the age and sex of my child simply by looking at what I purchased from him.
If you value your privacy and you shop using credit cards, you have some issues you need to resolve. It doesn't matter whether you shop online or not - do you really think a Sears or a JC Whitney doesn't share it's list with others? A few years back this became clear even in our small town - when everyone in this town of 200+ who subscribed to JC Whitney catalogs suddenly found Adam & Eve catalogs in their mailbox. This was way back when "the internet" was pretty much the exclusive domain of universities - before Playboy had even gone online. Merchants trading mailing lists is nothing new; the only difference is now they can "see" where you windowshop as well as where you buy. If that makes you uncomfortable then buy another computer and use it exclusively for all your shopping; Get a numnbered Swiss account and a debit card drawn against it. Or better still: support the small merchants in your community instead of heading to Amazon.com for every damn thing.
I wrote this in a fit of pique some years back. I've never tried actually putting into practice, though.
If, using nothing more than a, "license," these companies can absolve themselves of social responsibility with the stroke of a pen -- or the tap of a key -- then surely you can drag them back to civilized behavior using the same methods.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Whoever thinks this is news either has never worked for a web firm, or has never gotten to know their friendly marketing department.
-j
If you're going to include a link in a slashdot story, link to the page with ads. It's not free to put content on the web, and the producers of content deserve compensation.
Linking to a page where the newspaper, who has expended capital to report the story, will get no ad revenue is wrong!
My other sig is extremely clever...
I used to work for a big corp, and buzzwords like that nearly made sense to me.
For the past three years, I've been at much smaller companies, and I've also been doing a fair bit of martial arts training.
All that to say that when you toss out phrases like targeting the "low-hanging fruit" in this vertical, it takes me a minute to realize that you're not talking about a kick to the groin.
--
FTC sues Toysmart.com
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
... Water is discovered to be wet
still no cure for cancer.
The mistakes of a clever man are equal to the mistakes of a thousand fools.
At Fetuses-R-Us we're having a blowout sale!
Every fetus must go!
If you're tired of paying high prices for fetuses, we've got the deal for you!
fvi ivg o cshhlw
pg u
--
the strongest word is still the word "free"
Seriously, though, I don't think we should have to resign ourselves to the obligatory "guess who's not surprised" comment every time we hear about this. The free market is based upon the theory that people make rational decisions based on a full knowledge of the exchange. When an online company deliberately conceals their ability to profit from my transaction without my knowledge, that's kind of like me giving you $10 for that old coffee table and then taking your daughter's virginity to boot. It's doubtful that the $10 I originally offered would have sufficed as payment for the coffee table and the additional service taken.
The point: I should be informed how my information will profit the company and be given full value for the exchange. If my information can be sold or rented for $10, then I should receive an in-kind discount on the product or service I am getting. Or alternatively, if I find the practice repugnant, I can take my business to someone who offers a comprehensive privacy policy that is worth paying the extra $10 for.
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
for which you need a mail server :
this is how smtp works
%telnet your_isp 25
220 ok, go ahead
helo I'm a spammer
250 helo
MAIL FROM :
250 ok
RCPT TO :
250 ok
data
354 ok . to finish
To: everyone@theinternet.com
From: someone@hotmail.com
Subject: viagra is great
http://get.viagra.com
.
250 ok
quit
221 bye
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Duh. Here's how you rent a list: you set up a mail list server and your clients who "rent" your list know they can reach your customers by sending mail to that list.
You DO NOT "rent" data by giving it away. Even the RIAA (now) knows this... it's amazing so many allegedly techincally literate souls at /. apparently do not.
Your information in the possession of web retailers isn't interesting, so worrying about who has it is a waste of energy.
paintball
You are not geek enough:
The 257th Rule of Acquisition actually reads:
"Only fools negotiate with their own money."
for which you need a mail server :
this is how smtp works
%telnet your_isp 25
220 ok, go ahead
helo I'm a spammer
250 helo
MAIL FROM : <>
250 ok
RCPT TO : <you@mail_address.com>
250 ok
data
354 ok . to finish
To: everyone@theinternet.com
From: someone@hotmail.com
Subject: viagra is great
http://get.viagra.com
.
250 ok
quit
221 bye
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Clearly, the Hooked on Phonics folks didn't bother updating their privacy policy because they figured no one ordering their products could read it.
Any time I sign up for anything, I always create a special e-mail address just for that company or organization. However, there's just one address I actually USE for communicating with friends/family, which I'm careful not to post anywhere. I've been doing this for quite some time now.
I have come to the conclusion that no businesses or organizations actually sell my e-mail address.
I do not get spam at the addresses I create for companies/organizations, with the exception of those that post my e-mail address on the Web (such as eBay, Mozilla's Bugzilla, and Slashdot before they began obfuscating e-mail addresses) and it gets harvested by spiders. When this does happen, it's easy to create a new address, update the site to use the new one, and delete the old one to stop receiving that spam.
Other sources of spam are the address I use for domain registrations (harvested from the registrar's whois database, in violation of the registrar's terms of service), and GPL'd software I released (listed here without obfuscation).
Aside from that, nearly all my spam is sent to the one address I actually use for communicating with friends and family. Thank God for RBLs and bayesian filtering.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I use the usual system of one-per-company addresses, all aliased to my normal address, with the ability to divert them to the bit-bucket if they become a problem. I've had this address for about five years, and I buy a lot of stuff on the Web, but I have no, as in zero, spam. I've never yet had to devnull any of the addresses (there are currently 90), but I've yet to have offers to enlarge portions of my anatomy or bank balance. I've not used any of the addresses on Usenet, but other than that I've not taken any precautions. Am I alone in this?
Spam Gourmet looks interesting, to be sure. I need to read more about it though. I always assumed those email addresses were essentially bitbuckets, but I want to recieve email at bobscomputers@mydomain.com if it's about my business BobsComputers.
I just recently skimmed the Spam Gourmet site and I see that it has some way to allow certain senders or legit mail. Plus some other advanced options. I will look more into it.
In the meantime, though, my domain name system + OS X Mail's built in spam filter (yay for adaptive latent semantic analysis) do a pretty good job.
The big issue is not bits of data here and there. The real issue is as to how much power should be given to an agency to collect those bits together. Put together the bits will reveal much more than what they reveal in parts - so the motive is there for them to go ahead. If the wrong people assume power, and try to use this data, real or deduced or imaginary, "with the full force of the law" against you - you are basically screwed.
Now it comes down to your gut. Do you trust that the systems designed are so well in place that the wrong guys cannot be arraigned against you? If you do so, then I got a Brooklyn WMD to sell to you. The problems in keeping the data off the hands of the wrong guys when all these commercial companies are playing merry hell with the data they have are:
If you can make foolproof laws for keeping the wrong guys from trying to get hold of your data, you haven't met Mr. Scalia.
If you can't keep the wrong guys from winning once in a while, try not to put all your eggs in one basket. Don't let all these bits of pieces be collected in one basket. Don't allow that to happen surreptitiously. And don't allow it to happen by deceit.
And the first step is not to allow these commercial companies to trade your data based on lies and deceit. Later we can try to prevent John Edgar Hoover from dancing around in his bikini, trying to apply the "full force of the law" against people on his wrong side.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
The Washington Post should not be peeved at all. They just got a spot on my news bar. Clueful articles like this will have me reading them more than the New York Times.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I realize this may be alien to some, but have you thought that Chris just might be a girl?
Companies choose to choose the way we make them choose.
Spam should obviously be illegal, and the spammer should be fined. Allow the guilty spammer to sue the person who provided him with the email list for contribution (i.e. make everyone down the chain jointly and severally liable) and this bullshit will stop real fucking quickly. Whenever someone gets an unsolicited advertisement, everyone down the chain is strictly liable.
Example: Company X sells its customer data to company Y, who compiles the data on CDROMs and sells it to spammer Z. Spammer Z is fined $10,000 per email he sends (in my perfect world). Spammer Z, after being sued and found liable for a large sum of money, should be able to sue the company Y for contribution, and Co. Y should be able to sue Co. X, so that each guilty party pays their pro rata share of the fine(s). It's just like strict products liability; improperly using customer data is like putting a defective product into the stream of commerce.
And like with defective products, liability shouldn't be allowed to be waived, as that's against public policy. No "you give us permission to use your data any way we want" disclaimers--they should all be void. Selling customer data (or "renting it") for any marketing purpose is per se improper usage. Kinda like how Ford can't make you sign something saying you won't sue them if your car's tires blow out. If it's really Firestone's fault, then once you sue Ford, Ford can sue Firestone.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Isn't that what GillBates was suggesting Chris was hinting at?
I'm not ready to give up, nor should I. People should be able to roam the web honestly and in an upright manner. Why should anyone have to go around lying to keep their inbox clean of shit? There's nothing wrong with the internet's goals or technology, it's how some people abuse it. Let's not clound the issue by mixing three seperate issues, privacy, spam and fruad.
What I publish online is not private, it's what I want to share. What I tell my doctor, lawyer and even someone who sells me tutoring aids for my kids should be private. People who sell private information after prommising to keep it to themselves have betrayed my trust and commited fraud. People who explicitly lie about sharing what I tell them desrve to be fined.
I want to share my email address but don't think that gives anyone the right to spam me. There should be a law against unsolicited comercial email and sooner or later, there will be. Spam is an abuse, and Mallory Duncan needs to be straightened out: Mallory Duncan, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Retail Federation, argues that mainstream corporations can police their own marketing practices. "The concern with spam is not with the Gap coupon you receive," said Duncan, who represents the largest lobbying and trade group for store owners. "It's the huge amount of porn and other things that were unsolicited."
What the fuck is "mainstream"? Big? No Duncan, I don't want to hear from Gap any more than I want to hear from Hooked on Phonics or porn masters. It's all offensive. I think Duncan needs to be opted into a bunch of "mainstream" spammers:
duncanm@nrf.com
after all, the NRF posted it in a public place
The answer to spam is a the same thing that cleaned up junk faxes, a big fat fine for people who send it. The kind of fraud described by the Washington Post is already against the law, and those laws should be enforced.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Just try to find out where a company got your address from... you can't do it. Ask which companies they sell or rent your address to, and they won't tell.
They really mean it. They respect the privacy of their customers, but not consumers.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
You can already sue people who sell this information for profit if their privacy policy says they won't.
No, breach of contract is not what "capitalism" is all about. Liars go out of business in a truely free market and honest firms thrive. The only things that can keep dishonest firms in business are limits on information transfer and anti-competitive practices.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
We should be asking ourselves "why do spammers continue to spam?"
the answer could be anything from, "because they can," to "because they're the scum of the earth," but most likely the answer is simpler..
BECAUSE IT WORKS....
If spam didn't work, they wouldn't do it.
We need to encourage people, n00bs and eggspurts alike, to NOT RESPOND or purchase anything from spammers.
ISPs should inform new users that this is a good idea... quite simply:
NEVER BUY ANYTHING, NOR RESPOND TO ANY SALESMEN VIA EMAIL UNLESS YOU HAVE SOLICITED THE COMMUNICATION.
simple. it'll slowly sink in, and spammers will fade away because no immoral company will want to pay them for something that has a 0% success rate.
as long as that success rate is at least 0.1%, then people will continue to send out spam in the millions.
not plane, nor bird, nor even frog...
If it's not already illegal, this should be, especially if there is no notice of any particular size informing the user that the change is present.
No problem. Just pay with a credit card from a bank which has "different policies" about reimbursing merchants:
"Yes, I know that it's a VISA card, but unlike VISA Corp. our bank's policy is to refrain from paying the merchants who accept our charge cards. We find that this makes us more profitable, and increases customer satisfaction. Have a nice day." *CLICK*
Does that mean this ex-boyfriend was Pat?
Chris is a guy according to
this
Industry officials counter that if they don't have the right to approach consumers at least once, people will be deprived of potentially valuable offers that they would otherwise not hear about.
Yes, I'm so glad they can email me without permission... I'd hate to be deprived of all those valuable offers to E N L A R G E my penis...
I hereby place the above post in the public domain.
I cannot have been the only person to read "Web Firms Choose Profit over Piracy", and think to myself, "How strange..."
You're the CEO of a dotcom. You're VC cash is rapidly running out. You're close to being profitable but not quite there yet. The end of the tunnel is siz, maybe twelve months ahead, after which even the conservative forecasts have you in the clear. But, to make sure you're still around in six months, you need to generate some cash now. You and your board have explored all other avenues and have come to the conclusion that your customer database - a prized but untapped asset - is the only way that you're going to generate some cash.
Do you:
A) Sell/loan all customer information (even down to their mothers' maiden names)?
B) Sell/load some customer information (but nothing that's personal such as a name or address)? or
C) Sell no customer information, go into liquidation, wave goodbye to your job, salary, stock options, pension plan, future employment opportunities, those of your co-workers and your entire company?
If you answered C, bzzzt thanks for playing. This is a real world. Any CEO who answered C would be out on their ass and the next guy in his/her seat would be the one picking A or B. Sorry, but we don't live in an ideal world and that's the plain truth.
In business, when you're balls are on the line you don't get any prizes for being a nice guy. Deciding in favour of yourself, your employees and your customers at the expense of some of your customers (remember, not every customer will care about the privacy issues, or even be fully aware of them) is a no-brainer.
If you answered A then you got it right. After all, you know some of your customers personally, or you're probably one yourself, so you don't want to give out all that information. It'll be pretty hard to look your friends, family and neighbours in the face if the junk mail, etc that they've been getting is because of a bad business decision that you made.
If you answered B then you've saved your company but sold your soul. You might not give the decision a second thought but some of your customers will. It only takes one or two to kick up a real fuss and your ass will be on the line again. The last thing you need is a mass customer exodus or, worse, death threats from less well-adjusted ex-customers arriving to your home address.
I'm not suggesting that selling customer info is right. I'm not condoning that. Not for even a second. All I'm saying here is that CEOs sometimes have to make tough decisions. And those decisions often have to do with chosing the lesser of two (many) evils.
If you're the CEO, which are you going to pick?
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I did this in Exim, with a rewrite rule on the incoming message. You can then filter or shitcan with procmail.
/etc/exim/exim.conf (Exim 3.35-1 (Debian)):
From my
# rewrite incoming addresses foo+bar@domain.net => foo@domain.net
^([^+]+)\+(.*)@domain.net$ $1@domain.net T
Be sure to replace the @domain.net part.
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
Piracy is to be overthrown by "Trusted Computing" if you would believe it's supporters. My question is this: Will "Trusted Computing" allow us to sign our personal information so that only those we want to use it can do so? Some how I don't think so...
All the information about my likes, dislikes, shopping habits originally came from me, regardless of who collected it. It's my "IP" and I should have the right to protect it. Is the personal information market that much different from a P2P network. Personal information seems to spread just as quickly as the latest mp3's.
-- Cut and paste is not code re-use!
Several years ago PBS/WHYY was doing its usual begging for money to support their noncommercial television programming. I figured that since I watch a few programs on PBS I would donate $40. Then I saw that they were giving away a free subscription to Fast Company magazine if you donated $60, so I dialed the number and donated $60. I later received a postcard from them thanking me for my donation and saying that I would receive the Fast Company subscription. The interesting thing is that they misspelled my name in an unusual way.
I never received a single issue of Fast Company magazine, but I did receive plenty of mail solicitations from other entities with my name misspelled the same way that PBS had misspelled it.
Screwed over by a non-profit. Needless to say, I will never donate another penny to PBS.
Recently, for example, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation advertised that its list of donors, including postal addresses, was for rent.
Charities are often the worst privacy whores. They also have no qualms about hiring mercenaries (i.e., telemarketing firms) to do their dirty work. I have recieve several calls, where some sappy loser tries to make me feel guilty for not supporting the goldfish at Wal-Mart or something, and they quickly blurt out that they are actually some sort of telemarketing company when I tell them to take me off their list and never call back.
I hate to say it, but charities often give charity a bad name.
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
I use SpamGourmet and I *love* it. Infact all my publicly displayed email addresses (newsgroups / emaling to somebody unknown / published address on my resume) is now SG.
It is so easy to create throw-away email addresses. Also you can control how many times the address will be used.
Pretty neat, actually. Do check it out.
It must be, they don't go along with freedom that will
details at 11
The coffee table's legs are held on with chewing gum, and well, let's just say little Jenny's always been a free spirit, just like her ol' man... Thanks for the ten-spot though.
(ok, so it's late and i'm feeling a little silly...)
Freedom: "I won't!"
Because... there is a huge industry already out there calling. To suddently make that industry illegal and cost it billions of dollars is.. not a good move, economically speaking.
Simply banning calling anyone without their explicit approval, although it would be fantastic, would be a brutal move. After all.. we're talking about the US, where the dollar rules.
One thing that I have always been puzzled about on web privacy is the belief that explicit legislation or new rules are required to end these abuses.
If you read RFC 1945 section 12.3, it clearly states:
Now if you advertise your URL as "http://whatever", are you not implicitly stating that you have a server at that address that will comply with the http protocol?
So it seems to me that anyone who publishes a URL has already stated that they will not abuse the personal information without obtaining consent, because to do otherwise would be non-RFC compliant.
After that, general fraud statutes should apply.
Shit.....say it ain't so....
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
A problem that is in obvious need of a solution is before us and that solution could be here today: SLASHDOTPAC
that there is no honesty in management?
Heh, heh.../. geeks need to get out more...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
I just realize that a company selling my email address and buying habits has almost zero impact on the likelihood that my identity will be stolen.
Yes, I would object to my SSN being sold, but my name, address and phone number are in the phone book, as are that of millions of other people, and my email address is online as a matter of business necessity. There's no use fretting over what is already massively public information.
paintball
The Washington Post is a business, one of it's goals is to make money. They will not provide content to the web(indefinitely) if they lose money by doing so.
My other sig is extremely clever...