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.
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.
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
Didn't read the article, did you?
This wasn't an article crying, "Boo hoo, the marketers are selling our information!" It was in article crying, "Boo hoo, the marketers are telling us they won't sell our information, and are lying about it!"
If a merchant says they won't sell any of my personal information, but neglects to say that they consider renting it out to be A-ok, I think there's a problem there.
If a merchant says that they won't disclose any of my personal information, but neglects to say that transactions are handled by another company (even though they all take place on the merchant's site, with a little "Powered By CartManager" logo at the bottom), and that that third party has no trouble selling my personal information, I think there's a problem there.
If a charity says on its web site that it won't disclose any of my personal information, but neglects to say that that just happens to not apply to people who donate through the mail instead of online, I think there's a problem there.
Finally, if a merchant says they won't sell or rent my personal information, and then sells or rents it, I think there's a problem there.
This has nothing to do with marketers collecting information. This has to do with marketers collecting information in methods that range from the dubious to the outright fraudulent.
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.