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...
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.
...don't buy anything advertised to you by spammers.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
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.
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.
Isn't that the whole point of capitalism?
0 1 - just my two bits
The Washington Post is not a geek publication. It is a publication intended for the masses. The news here on slashdot is not that businesses are choosing profit over privacy, because as you pointed out, everyone here already knows. The news is that a major publication just brought it to the attention of the general public. (Of course, other papers have already, so this is a semi-dupe
Why is bringing this to the masses important? You mentioned profit over customer/employee safety. The masses demanded, and received, laws to establish safety guidelines so businesses couldn't completely sacrifice those things for profit. If privacy concerns are raised more vocally and more often, the masses may begin demanding privacy guidelines as well.
It's nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand.
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...
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
If you "rent" my list from me, it means that I don't give you my list, but instead send the mail on your behalf.
This means that you don't get to keep, or even see my data, but every one on my list still gets spammed.
I know this was meant to be humorous, but couldn't a low bandwith, mostly text parallel net be formed?
I would like a Fidonet type system. A lot of wireless where possible, piggy back on existing Internet via VPN otherwise. Encrypted traffic. New extended SMTP mail system that authenticates sender and recipient (No SPAM). No graphics necessary, saves bandwidth, keeps out advertisers and porn.
Keep usenet(without spam), irc,google, slashdot, email and maillists, simple web pages(stuff that show up in links or lynx or emacs) . Ditch the rest. If you want large file tranfers use the regular Internet. Or broadcast it on radio (Debian diustribution on certain frequency, continuously)
Just leave the existing Internet to AOL, MS and RealMedia et al. Take our ball and go home.
Hmm. Where to start tearing apart a post that I fundamentally agree with?
Well, consider the aggregation of information--the information being sold(/rented/leased/traded) isn't always aggregate collections of anonymous data. More and more, it's becoming SPECIFIC information, along the lines of "you're name is a, your address is b, your annual income is c, and you like to see naked women doing x." This is DEFINITELY an invasion of my privacy and yours.
Furthermore, it's becoming the standard. There are fewer and fewer companies who refuse to sell individually identifiable databases.
Now moving backwards in your post, I have no problems with companies making a profit. I do object to companies making a profit off of me by exploiting me in ways I didn't agree to. If I buy a book from a bookstore, I expect them to be smart enough to mark it up in order to make a sustaining profit. If they can't make a profit without selling my reading preferences to someone else, then they DESERVE to go bankrupt! Piss on them if their business model doesn't work. (Banks are a different but related situation: They make a profit off of borrowing money and lending it out at higher rates. In the last decade, however, they decided that they can charge us for doing our OWN banking and make an extra profit. Service charges for routing banking should be illegal)
Now another point to bring up is the fact that most of these companies under discussion are selling all of this personal information in direct violation of their contract with their customers! This is reprehensible, and possibly illegal. Again, it's also becoming common because they're not getting slapped down for it.
Unfortunately, your final point holds true: Companies will always put profit ahead of people, and almost all companies are too short-sighted (read: dumb!) to understand that the two work together.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
FTC sues Toysmart.com
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10
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.
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.
I wouldn't have modded this a troll, but that's just me. I know far too many people with this attitude.
You have obviously never been a victim of identity theft. You've never had to spend endless hours with credit card companies you've never been a customer of. You've never had to deal with the slime that call themselves "credit reporting agencies" who have your fiscal future in the palm of their hands (unless you're already well-to-do). You've obviously never been hounded by creditors at all hours looking for their pound of flesh. You've never been informed that you have a warrant for your arrest in Texas when you've never been to Texas. You've obviously never attempted to change you SSN. You've obviously never been informed that you drowned in a river while attempting to evade capture and had to prove that you were neither dead nor evasive.
I know people and read about new occurances on a daily basis. It's not fun, it's not funny and you don't get to shrug it off. You either have to deal with it, or face harsh consequences.
There's a reason that the FBI and local law enforcement are dealing with more of this type of crime than ever before. It's easy to do because people don't take the simple precautions to make it difficult. I can tell you that only through bitching at insurance companies and having other people do the same can you get your SSN+1 policy id changed to something else. That only through bitching at the legislature can you make it easy to have you SSN taken of you Driver's License, rather than an ordeal.
Anyone profitting off of personal identifiable information without recourse of some sort for the people whose privacy is being violated should be sued, beaten, incarcerated and/or put of off business.
Problem is most sheeple don't really know what is being done with their information. They don't know that it's being used to get people across borders illegally. They don't know how many billions of dollars are lost each year to businesses and private people. They don't know that they're being abused, because, at least with spam, they don't know that it isn't the norm. They don't know that the reason they're getting the Credit Card solicitations is because they've been rated a good risk by the Credit Reporting Agencies and sold out. They don't know how to get out from under the thumb of business because they think they're supposed to be there.
I applaud any outlet that informs people of their options and that something they have become innured to is actually deviant and underhanded.
Companies choose profit because without it, they fail. Iff companies see their profits fall in such a way that they know it is due to their policies, or lack thereof, will they amend their ways. However that is rarely the case. I know lots of people who go around saying that they will never shop at this place or that because of foo, but I rarely hear that they gave a manager whatfor or wrote a letter to corporate. And there are enough B-to-B aggregators out there who could care less if the people they sell your info to are profitable, as long as they, the aggregators, are profittable.