Slashdot Mirror
North American Corporate Privacy Comparison
Scooter[AMMO] writes "The Toronto Star has published an article on a study comparing the way companies protect the privacy of their customers, which is surely a topic of interest to most /.'ers. Choice quote: 'The study, the first to compare the corporate privacy practices of comparable Canadian and U.S. firms, found that Canadian businesses see their privacy practices as an opportunity to improve relations with customers, while their U.S. counterparts viewed privacy measures more as a way of complying with legislation and avoiding civil lawsuits.'"
Most American companies are too thick to treat the consumer with respect as a route to profit, rather than squeeze them for all they have.
It's an attitude thing, OK maybe not geo-specific, but it's prevailant in a profit driven world.
In the United States, "It's all about complying with the law, which may or may not have any bearing to people," said Ponemon. "In Canada, I got the sense that they thought it was just the right thing to do."
Isn't that exactly why we have laws in the first place, to set up penalties for not doing the 'right thing?'
The privacy issue of customers and employees alike takes an interesting spin when you factor in outsourcing. Suddenly, all of your personal data is in someone's database overseas. That's ok, until there's a political problem. When you have a government who doesn't give a rat's butt about privacy laws in other countries, and someone decides to sell your data, you're screwed.
Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!
Indeed, 61 per cent of surveyed Canadian companies linked "good privacy practices" to customer trust and brand loyalty, compared to only 17 per cent of U.S. companies.
Maybe it's different in Canada, but there's a reason only 17% of US companies think that - because people around here just don't care! Sure, we complain about spam and junk mail, but how many people do you know (that don't read Slashdot!) actually care about their privacy at all? I'd say less than 10%. Look at how people react to invasions of privacy by the government ("It's for our protection!") and by companies ("Hey, if I use this card who cares if they track my purchases, I saved $2!"). They just don't give a damn!
Is it possible that Canadian citizens care more about privacy, making it make more sense for Canadian corporations to value privacy more?
As a student and part of business school is learning about ethical/privacy concerns. I go to a private, Catholic university that's good about ethics and doesn't over do the religion, so they very good about posing ethical/moral decisions on students. Part of the studies is to recognize international/other nation's attitudes and expectations. On what I've seen, Europe is a far more private and "American" than the U.S. The U.S. business attitude is "ok, we have to comply, but how far can we push this?" Not Europe's, "hmm, is this good for our consumers?"
Sad, really.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
I would like to know something. Why are us in the United States trying so hard to distance ourselves from Canadians, and vise versa? We're all Americans. And now we need some study to contrast something as meaningfull as privacy habits of COMPANIES (that was sarcastic by the way).
"I think it shows that the U.S. view of privacy is more a security-centric view, while in Canada we have a more European view that says we need to protect against abuse from authorized users," said Peter Hope-Tindall, a privacy consultant in Toronto.
Another thing, why do Canadians try so hard to be "like Europe", and why does the United States try so hard to be "different" from Europe?
Any positive action the corporations might do (like the Canadian companies do) is discouraged because the attorneys will pick them apart and attack them in punishment for owning up to or admitting wrongdoing, or even acting to prevent it. "Cover up and shred and deny" becomes the game where there are sharks who will rip you apart for even a drop of blood.
Those who oppose abuses by rich corporations would do well to remember that the lawyers themselves represent large, rich law firms that are corporations as well.
And what is bad about this? The vast amount of people I know simply don't care that some company knows what kind of toothpaste I buy, when I swipe my VISA card, or other minutiae.
If consumers don't care, why should corporations? If privacy was such a big factor in doing business with them, I'm sure corporations would make a bigger issue of it.
How many people actually take the time to view privacy statements and policies? I don't. As long as I know they have one, that's enough for me and most consumers.
Slashdot Moderation: From positive to terrible in 2 "insightful" posts.
When your medical/financial records are sent to god knows where for whatever reason, your: Name, DOB, SSN, and address are sent along with it. Everything a crook/terrorist needs to steal your identity and cause havoc.
There was this study that most identity thefts are an inside job. Mostly from financial and medical firms. Identity Theft
This is a classic example of where laws regarding corporations are only abided by because breaking them is illegal, not because they feel compelled to be honest like most hard working people.
Canada has laws against using aluminum to distribute consumable products like FOOD. Aluminum pans are not used in Canda. This is all due to research done years ago linking the build up of aluminum in the human brain to neurological problems like Alzheimers.
But then again, Canadians benefit from socialized medecine. It just doesnt make sense for their government to allow companies to distribute aluminum with food because they will only have to pay for the medical bills and medications of those adversly affected in the long run. Or is it because they are nice?
No laws like that here. Hell you buy enough different kinds of food that comes in aluminum containers to last you a lifetime if thats all you ate. You'd probably be a blithering idiot by the time you were 45, but who cares? Just get someone to stand in line for you at the medicare office, and take up a part time job at McDonalds to pay for the rest of the expenses.
Something is really really wrong with this picture. In a day and age where corporate rule and well being in "the greatest country in the world" is held is such high regard over the well being of the general populace, its a small wonder that nothing short of apathy sweeps the minds of those who stumble upon someone so informed and opinionated.
"I cant change this by myself and all I want to do is make a good life for my family and live another day.." is by and large the mantra of working heads of households. But this is under the guise that tomorrow there will be the right to do what you can for your families. Slowly but surely everything from what you eat and how you eat it to where you live and what you see on the internet is under less and less of your own control.
Welcome to America, take a number and sit the fuck down.
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
I find this very strange coming out of an essentially socialist country. I know I am very concerned about privacy and would use that as a deciding factor when doing business. But then most Libertarians are concerned about freedom and privacy.
My boy, my boy!
Given the US's past (present and future) trend towards rampant, unbridled, unhindered, wanton capitalism, it should be entirely obvious why this is the case. Legislation that serves the public interest scarcely serves the corporate interest. Now, this would not be a problem if it weren't for one deciding factor that turns a capitalist into a member of the capitalistas: the stock market.
The stock market has corrupted the entire concept of free market and free trade, not supported it. It's a legalization of sleaze. Where else can somebody take an ethically deplorable action, such as firing thousands to inflate quarterly profits, and be rewarded with unimaginable riches by the shareholders?
Capitalism is great, but this neo-fascist capitalist-inspired plutocracy has got to go.
So Canadian Companies have privacy options to keep the customer happy and the United Stated has it to keep from being sued!
Democracy in action! Only in America you can get sued for knowing someone's name and address!
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
I just tried to call the number and it was busy. Certainly feel free to verify any information regarding this. (Google cache of State of NJ website listing this and other methods). I only wish that I could end "CAR RT SORT" mail from getting to me. All I do is toss out dozens of circulars per week. A waste of paper and time.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Very true. I was impressed European law that just because someone has something, it doesn't imply that it is immediately theirs to do with what they will. Personal information by default, if I remember correctly, is sharable only on an opt-in basis. That would be so nice here.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
I do not believe the average American consumer believes any company is going to "do the right thing" without some sort of legal force behind it. And even then, it will be a question of risk vs. benefit.
So the Canadian company that believes having some extensive privacy statement and following it closely will net them better customer relations is deluding themselves. Similarly, an American company that does not have as extensive a committment to privacy - and perhaps actually does not provide as much "real privacy" to customers is likely operating in an environment where spending more dollars on "improving privacy" is a waste of time and money. In either case, the majority is likely to assume whatever they say, they are lying. What ever they claim to be doing, they are doing whatever they need to do. Period.
Now, it would be nice if there was some organization that actually investigated privacy practices and reported on them. Unfortunately, what we have is membership-based organizations where you pay a fee and get to put a logo on your web page. Does this come with any follow through, education, training or publicity? No. You have a logo on your web page. This pretty much tells the consumer nothing but it does look nice.
I'm afraid that my experience of American companies means that I don't trust them any more. Sorry, but that's the case. Three times now I've been involved in deals with American companies where the American company has betrayed one of their European partners, just to make a fast buck, including one case which financially ruined one of my clients.
You should do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, not because it's the law or so you don't lose customers.
I wsa in a meeting with some marketing people about designing our ecommerce site. To make a long story short, the marketing guy says "We need to collect personal information from our customers."
Me: "Why? We're not doing any marketing studies."
Marketing guy: "Someday, we may need it."
A lot of this has do with the magical thinking that collecting as much information on your customers leads to better business decisions. Most of the time, I see these folks collecting so much data that they don't have a clue what to do with it.
In the end, no link was found between aluminum in containers/cooking surfaces and Alzheimer's.
"You'd probably be a blithering idiot by the time you were 45, but who cares?"
There is no link at all. "But then again, Canadians benefit from socialized medecine."
If you call it a "benefit" to be forced against your will against a "one size fits few" system that is forced on all Canadians. Thankfully, there is a southern border where Canadians have to go to get better health care. Health care is too important to let the rulers make all your decisions for you.
Canada is just in its infancy concerning privacy laws. At one point I'm sure US companies thought it was just the right thing to do, but all it takes is one or two companies to sell out their customers' privacy and then the laws are needed. Then when there's more abuse, even more laws and stiffer penalties come in to the point that companies no longer care about the right thing to do, but they are concerned about protecting their own asses 'cuz they don't want to get sued or fined again.
;)
Then come the opportunistic lawyers that look for ways in which companies are violating the law so they can trump up some frivolous privacy lawsuit and rake in the dough.
Yes Canada, enjoy it while you can. Soon you will grow up, just like your Brother, the US.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
Yes. It borders Canada.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
"It could be that (U.S. companies) feel what they're doing is more than adequate and just as protective of the customer."
with this passage from a MetLife insurance application (printed entirely in bold in the original, emphasis mine):
We may use what we know about you in order to offer you our other products and services. We may disclose this information (other than consumer reports and health information) to our affiliates so that they can offer their products and services, or ours, to you. By law, we don't have to let you prevent these disclosures. Our affiliates include life, car and home insurers, securities firms, broker-dealers, a bank, a legal plans company and financial advisors. In the future we may have affiliates in other businesses.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
I'm sure most people's main privacy concern is companies selling their information (primarily just name and number) to telesales firms. I have to wonder why they do this. Look at the numbers;
There are very few monthly services that cost less than $10 per month. Usually that's over a minimum 12 month term, so that means that for each customer,the company will make $120.
In addition to this, they can sell the customer information for about 1 cent per name. They might even be able to find 100 companies to sell it to. Is that dollar really worth it? Wouldn't a promise never to sell a customer's details be worth more to the customer?
No science plus lots of anecdotal evidence leads people to very, very wrong conclusions. And, in places where the "Greens" have more political clout you get laws passed that codify bad science into rules that people think are grounded in something. In nearly all cases this is made-up nonsense from purely anecdotal hearsay.
I work in a library. It took me 2-3 months of constant bugging to get our privacy practices posted on the web. The first reponse we got back from legal council was that, and I quote, "The policy is somewhat that we don't post notices about the law." (the USA PATRIOT Act being the law in question)
Oh well, next up is getting us to admit to the public that we have video cameras installed....
This has to be modded up.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
If you buy (or not) something during a strike (at Wal-Mart for instance), and the shop (or tracking card) sells this information with a prospective employer, it will know the strength of your position IRT unions etc.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
As a Canadian I would like to help debunk the myth of Canadians as so much "nicer" than Americans.
We have a habitual need to publish smarmy, self-serving articles about our superiority to our chums down south. We pollute less (wrong), we're more environmentally aware (wrong), there's no racism (wrong), we don't have crime (wrong), we're clean (wrong - come to Toronto sometime and sample one of our many fine street corner garbage tornados, sewer reeks and impromptu construction debris dumps), our health care is great (wrong) , our brains are bigger, our dicks are smaller but they're magical so it doesn't matter, the sun shines out of our arseholes to warm the entire world, blah blah blah.
OK, with the context firmly in place, I've worked in two places since the recent privacy acts have some into force and I'm sorry, it's just a bogus bogus bogus self-serving, lie to state that Canadian companies are motivated more by a desire to have "better customer relationships" than by a desire to avoid litigation. Don't make a mistake, this is an opportunitiy for lawyers to scare companies into paying them consultant fees and that is exactly what is happening. Where I've worked (insurance industry) it's been jumping cats trying to avoid doing anything with personal info that could cause lawsuits. Shredders are working overtime. Policy and procedure documents are sprouting like mushrooms. All inititatives are led by lawyers and all the executives have to say is "don't get us sued". Not "we find this a tremendous opportunity to serve our beloved clients" but "We abuse our customers and they hate us. We can't give them a chance to sue us because they will. For god's sake, don't get us sued!!! Please!!!"
Just like in the US, the successful businesses in Canada are those which lie, cheat, and abuse their customers.
This certainly describes Canada more than the U.S. The Canadian government meddles much more in private business affairs.
"Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
The reason American companies don't care about customer privacy is because consumers don't care. And consumers don't care because they expect the government to protect them from everything. If people wake up, realize that they need to make decisions rather than legislating everything and criticizing "evil big business", maybe businesses would actually have an opportunity to improve the bottom line by improving privacy standards. As of right now, that's a fallacy in the minds of the average slashdotter.
"This is all due to research done years ago linking the build up of aluminum in the human brain to neurological problems like Alzheimers."
Thre is no link between aluminum utinsels and Altzheimers. Its a myth. Its in the same category as "crystals" and "horoscopes".
Oh Canada!
The good thing about USA is that it's Not Canada
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
We are the pirates...who don't do anything...
"Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance
Americans think 100 years is a long time"
. . .either they believe it will generate a profit, now or in the future, or they are legally compelled to do it.
Any company that does not follow this maxim will be out of business soon, because they will lose capital or competetive advantage.
Read any good sonnets lately?
In other news, the underdog Candian competitor is the audience favorite to win the race. The crowd is tired of seeing the perpetual American winner coast through the finish line and onlookers never miss an opportunity to find fault.
Jeez folks, this may or may not be true, but let's all recognize the storyline it is patterned off of. USA=big bad bullies who don't play fair, Canada=nice people who do the right thing. What, do Canadian companies not have a profit motive?
Premature optimization is the root of all evil
That is a classic example of Ad Populum logical fallacy (Appeal to Popularity). Capitalistic, yes, logical, maybe not.
"Ad Populum" does not apply here. The subject is "importance", which is a subjective measurement that people give to something. Adding up how many people think it is important certainly is valid, since it is the most objective way to measure importance. Importance is very similar to "populariy" in this respect. "Appeal to popularity", far from being a fallacy, is the best way to measure importance.
The company I work for is making privacy a big part of its marketing appeal. "Take back your data." "Your information is yours." The Powers That Be want people to be sure that we won't misuse their information. What would a good model privacy policy be for a company that wants its customers to feel warm and fuzzy about their data privacy?
I already talked to EPIC and EFF. For fire-breathing privacy advocates they weren't terribly helpful. They said, more or less, "Nobody has ever asked us this. We're more interested in government policy than what corporations are doing."
The man who never alters his opinion is like the stagnant water and breeds Reptiles of the Mind -- William Blake
Most companies aren't going to do anything about guarding privacy until they get bitten.
A former employer is in the data management business. The data consists of a global set of individuals & certain information about them, including, for some US individuals, their social security number, as well as address info. When I left we were not yet collecting credit card data, but the possibility of doing so in the future existed.
At a corporate level, and as far as clients know, data security / privacy is contractually guaranteed. But the reality is that servers & desktops with all their data are unsecured (physically). Sure, the production machines are all in a secure location, but the data also exists in testing databases, test plans (i.e. documentation), developer databases, developer hard drives, etc. There was absolutely no effort whatsoever to protect the privacy of the individuals' data. We had no visibility to what level of confidentiality our clients' promised their customers, so we made no effort to meet their privacy requirements - which I would presume to be more strict than ours, as some clients were non-US companies.
At one point, a potential client sent a security audit team to our facilities to verify that we met their requirements. For that day, we locked the door to the server room, but otherwise left it open for maximum airflow. (too many systems in a closet designed to house a phone system) In any case, all their data was on the harddrive in my development box anyway, a system sitting on the floor about 8 feet from the back door to the office. A setup that I imagine would hardly have passed their audit, had they asked. That hard drive contains hundreds of thousands of individuals, their addresses and clear-text user ids & passwords to some websites. Since we all know that most users are lazy and use the same password for multiple purposes, the information on that system could be extremely valuable to certain people.
In the face of all this, management expressed essentially no concern for privacy of those individuals, or the potential liability associated with the lack of security.
The Office of the Privacy commisioner of Canada
The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Jennifer Stoddart, is an Officer of Parliament who reports directly to the House of Commons and the Senate. In addition to the Privacy Commissioner, the Office has two Assistant Privacy Commissioners, Heather Black and Raymond D'Aoust. The Office also has an External Advisory Committee, launched in February 2004.
The Commissioner is an advocate for the privacy rights of Canadians. Her powers include:
* investigating complaints and conducting audits under two federal laws;
* publishing information about personal information-handling practices in the public and private sector;
* conducting research into privacy issues; and
* promoting awareness and understanding of privacy issues by the Canadian public.
The Commissioner works independently from any other part of the government to investigate complaints from individuals with respect to the federal public sector and the private sector.
Individuals may complain to the Commissioner about any matter specified in Section 29 of the Privacy Act. This Act applies to personal information held by the Government of Canada.
For matters relating to personal information in the private sector, the Commissioner may investigate complaints under Section 11 of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.
Of course they care about privacy. They just care about buying power a great deal more.
1) Customers want low prices from the companies with whom they do business. They vote with their feet and dollars by going to the companies who have the lowest prices--subsidized by the sale of customers' private information.
2) Customers want high wages (and thus, by extrapolation, maximum profitability) from their own company. They won't put pressure management not to exploit customers' private information because it would lead to a net loss in revenue.
Thus, the American public votes continuously, day in and day out, that they'd rather have bigger buying power (higher wages, lower prices) than protect their privacy.
The same calculation regrettably applies to protecting the environment, supporting fair labor practices, or having access to quality (read: long lasting) goods.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I say if the companies want personal information for "market research" (translation: "so we can sell it at the end of the quarter to keep our profits up"), let 'em have it. Either give them as much absolute crap as you can dream up so their database is poisoned with enough garbage as to make the exercise unprofitable, or start charging for the privilege of an honest answer. They want a street address? Fine, that'll be $1000 U.S., per financial quarter. Let's call it "an exercise in capitalism".
Either way, the fact that they'll actually have to spend money to get/keep/use the data will drive them bat-shit crazy.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
I wonder what it will take for a sufficient number of people to find that kind of corporate arrogance intolerable, and vote with their wallets...
As so often happens, the push to legislate privacy disclosures has normalized some pretty dismal behavior.
<grrr>
And here I thought the US passed the PATRIOT Act. You remember this one? The one that allowed them to get a secret search warrant, go through your house, and NEVER tell you they were there. The one that allows them to access your bank account, library records, and everything else, and actively prohibit the bank/library from telling you about it.
They have also managed to declare CITIZENS "enemy combatants" and hold them permanently without charging them with any crimes. HELLO Habeas Corpus... you know, the constitutional guarantee that you will be charged within 48 hours or released? Yeah, that one.
Grow up & look around you.
...opportunity to improve relations with customers vs ...more as a way of complying with legislation and avoiding civil lawsuits.
I don't see the difference. Improving relations with customers is a *really* good way of avoiding civil lawsuits.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
Consumers: What happen?
Slash-Dot: Somebody set up us the Privacy Flag.
Slash-Dot: We get junk mail.
Consumers: What!
Slash-Dot: Main screen turn on.
Consumers: It's You!!
Corporation: How are you gentlemen!!
Corporation: All your private dataare belong to us.
Corporation: Your rights are on the way to destruction.
Consumers: What you say!!
Corporation: Your rights have no chance to survive make your time.
Corporation: HA HA HA HA!
Corporation: Sell off every data.
Consumers: You know what you doing.
Corporation: Cash in.
Consumers: For great justice.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
As I read all the comments on this topic I have to wonder,"Who cares about privacy in an economic environment?" We all want the best prices so, arguably, it's in our best interest to give up privacy so that the corporate entities can anticipate our demands an meet them in a timely and cost effective manner.
I'm going to start this thought train with two basic points:
> Privacy is a real concept and it is important.
> Nobody has anything to hide.
The first point is necessary for any of this to be relevant at all. If privacy wasn't a real concept or wasn't important then it wouldn't be an issue. The second point is necessary to keep the thought train on a logical course. We can debate all day long who wants to be shy, or modest, or keep the ball gag in the closet. We can debate all day long about people hiding from ex-fiancees, or ex-lovers, or even family members. We can debate all day people who are paranoid and hiding from stalkers. We can debate all day about people who watch their neighbors like potential felons, just waiting for them to make a mistake. So let's just say that we live in a perfect little white-picket fence society with a 1.5 car garage and 2.4 children per household.
Why is privacy important?
Humans, just like any other highly evolved animal and probably even plants, set themselves up into social tiers. There is a pecking order to human society. Society is embodied by the constant struggle of those who wish to advance vs. those who wish to have cheap servants. In this struggle it is necessary to always stay one step ahead of the competition.
Modern day society is no different. There are the multibillionaires who make up 10% of the population and they, directly or indirectly, control the flow of greater than 90% of the finances. If those with the most power and control get together and decide that the general public needs to be pacified, Enron and Xerox get tanked. If they decide that Martha Stewart has stood on her podium long enough then she ends up in jail. If they decide that the trailer parks are becoming restless they'll allow Kid Rock and Eminem to achieve stardom.
Forget the stories. Don't believe the hype. Quit taking television and newspapers as gospel, innocent truth. There is always an ulterior motive and that motive is money.
Once again, then, why is privacy important? Privacy is important because by giving up our privacy we are _NOT_ gaining the best prices. We are _NOT_ gaining better service. What we are gaining is the _ILLUSION_ of better prices and services.
Take the often debated (and really quite silly) grocery store discount cards. My cashier regularly tells me that "You could've saved $1.35 today", or "that would've been an extra $0.75 off" if I would sign up for the card. Why should I be bothered that much by that little bit of money? This isn't about privacy. This is about total cost of services. How much more are prices going to go up to implement the database and tracking systems? How much are my taxes going up because the legislators needed another 6 secretaries to handle the paperwork for writing the laws to govern the privacy of these discount cards? How much are my car, home, health, and life insurance premiums going up because some attorneys got together and decided to use the laws, written by the overpaid politicians with 6 new secretaries, to sue some poor Joe's Fine Food's store for sharing his customer list with Mike's Hardware?
When I talk of conserving privacy it's not really about the privacy at all. It's about the lie that comes with the illusion that giving up privacy guarantees me a better life. It doesn't. Giving up privacy only gives other systems the excuse to charge more.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Surveys are never objective, it all depends on how you ask the questions.
To a Canadian company:
"Hello, we a Canadian research firm doing a study about Canadian vs. American privacy policies. Would you say that your privacy policy protects the consumer? Yes? Thanks!"
To an American company:
"Hello, we doing a study about consumer privacy policies. Would you say the need for privacy policies were prompted by consumer lawsuits and legislation? Yes? Thanks!"
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
-----
Yet there is NO EVIDENCE that such meetings or any such collusion ever occurs, and events go on as if nothing like this is happening
-----
What, you want a posted public notice in the newspaper? How about a separate commercial on television which says,"Attention, all millionaires are asked to meet at the country club this Sunday to discuss the shape of affairs on the stock market, the economy, and the impending public backlash. Anyone who cannot afford the $25,000 membership fee will be turned away by the guards at the gates and is advised not to bother showing up."
Puh-leez.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I'm planning on starting a new company using the advices I gained from Slashdotters and call it Slashdotters, Inc.
I have no idea that products or services the company will be selling, but according to the slashdotters, pro-profit companies' main goal is to create jobs, not to make profit. That also means that we'll never lay anyone off no matter what because that'll be a bad thing. As the President/CEO of the company I pledge that EVERYONE in Slashdotters, Inc., including myself, will be paid the same amount of salary of one million dollars per year. That way, the works will not feel that the management is over paid and to make sure that the pay and benefit of the workers come before any profit considerations since we are fro-profit Corporation after all and this will conform with the belief of the slashdotters.
I also pledge that we will never collect any of the customers' data. This will make it hard for us to market our product (when we come up with one) but 100% privacy is our goal that also has higher priority than making a profit. No intelligent slashdotter will ever stand for a for-profit company caring about profits.
At this rate, Slashdotters, Inc. may experience losses for years and thus will not be subject to income taxes. However, a corporation not paying income taxes is not acceptable to the slashdotters and therefore, it will be a policy of Slashdotters, Inc. to overpay its taxes no matter what.
And as the President/CEO of Slashdotters, Inc., I will make sure that every decision either has to be made by myself, or that a 10 page written report be made and sent to myself so that I am aware of EVERYTHING that is going on in the company. It may suck to have to write a 10 page report to buy a box of pens, but according to the slashdotters, I'm responsible for it.
And I also pledge to hire only the Comp Sci majors for the management position. From my own experiences nothing prepares me better for running a company than learning about C++ and Java in my CS classes. Not to mention that games like War/Star Craft, UT/Quake, and AD&D that Slashdotters love is all about teamwork.
So my friends, stop wasting your money on petty stuff like video games, ultra fast computers, phat stereo systems, nice cars (when a Geo Metro or bus will do), or nice housing (if 10 Mexicans can live in a one bedroom apartment, so can you), put your money where your mouth is and invest in the Slashdotters, Inc. Chances are that you'll lose all your money but you'll feel better knowing that you've invested your money went to a company that shares your beliefs rather than going to some rich bastards by buying some useless crap.
***Disclaimer: I may be violating some SEC regulations here but we all know that all the bastards in the government are for big corporations (by not making any profit, Slashdotters, Inc. will never become an evil big corporation) which conspire to keep honest little Mom and Pop operations like Slashdotters, Inc. So please don't report me to the SEC.
***Disclaimer 2: I know that my writing sucks but I refuse to take any business writing classes because according to the slashdotters, taking business classes lowers your intelligence.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
However in this day and age some people are doing the work of three employees. Working extra long hours and not complaining cause they dont want to be 'let go'. So i dont really think its fair to assume that 1000 workers being let go means there was no work for them. Just that the company needed to compete with its competitors on a fair price, even though the other company was lying. ( Im talking about AT&T vs MCI here ).
gm
I work for a large multi-national financial services company, and we have long been aware how much more stringent the laws are in other jurisdictions. (This is not exactly news.) However, the interesting thing is that there has been a clear trend over the last few years towards increasingly stringent regulations in other countries too. So, the net effect is that the US is slowly being surrounded by laws that are more privacy friendly than those in the US. (Hard to be *less* privacy friendly than the US, generally speaking.)
As companies like mine get more and more forced to adopt practices that conform to the most restrictive of these various bits of legislation, we are tending more and more to say "To Hell with what you can do in the US, we'll just go with something much more like Germany's". Of course, this tendency is only exerting leverage on multi-nationals, but that is a significant chunk of the companies that we all do business with, so who knows?...
"The time is always now" - Victor
-----
No, not that. How about one little thing.... Evidence. Is it so much to ask for?
-----
Where am I supposed to get this evidence from? Do you think that they post a public notice in the newspaper? Should I set my VCR to record the private commerical where they say,"All business owners who can afford the $25,000 club fee please show up to the tees on Sunday to discuss the economy, the stock market fallout, the impending public backlash, and whose ass we have to sacrifice to keep the media off our backs!"
It's not any different than the Guatanamo Bay atrocities. Do you think they'll ever find written "EVIDENCE" that the soldiers were following orders?
-----
"Conspiracy theory" folks like you
-----
Right. Anyone who claims that orders to abuse prisoners is a conspiracy theorist because they can't produce a written order from a major or corporal or general or Dick Cheney which says,"Beat these prisoners and humiliate them." At best there's heresay. Maybe there are some testimonies from some lower guards.
Or, back to the economic scene, maybe there are the testimonies from a few lower investment managers at Strong Funds which resulted in Strong being FINED OUT THE WAZOO and the CEO, Mr. Strong himself, stepping down and agreeing to never be employed in the stock trading industry again.
But, you're right... I'm not going to Google and link to the actual printed material, so you can feel free to keep trolling on forever because I don't have "EVIDENCE".
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
I don't generally bother with ACs (changing my comment threshold to a negative number is tedious) but what the hell. In case the subject didn't make my thoughts known, there was an "etc." at the end of that for a reason. And yeah, if you're going to contrast the similarities between border towns with the differences in very distinct geographical regions, then of course there will be a difference. That would hold true for most any bordering countries. But I was referring to the countries taken as a whole, including political climate and the effect it has on the citizens, and not just small things like regional dialects and local economies.
do not read this line twice.
The corporations would exist still, with a slightly different legal status, but with the same size, power, and operation style.
Large businesses whill of course continue to exist. But without the special privileges that governments grant to corporations, they'll be much different beasts. First of all, control will remain with a few owners, instead of diluted among millions of shareholders. While those few owners might still be greedy bastards, at least a human being is there making decisions, instead of some business process. Second, liability will reside with those who make the decisions. As it stands now, no one in a corporation takes responsibility for what a corporation does.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I would rather be killed by a bomb than have to live in a country where I have no rights. Granted that's not the way the US is now, but it's not an impossibility for the future. I would rather live in fear of being blown up by terrorists than live in fear of the government that is supposed to protect me. How many people in the USA die from terrorist attacks a year? 10,000? 20,000? I bet it's actually a HELL of a lot less than that. How many people will be affected by legislation that kills off our right to privacy? All of us. I don't think it's a fair trade...
I am a viral sig. Please help me spread.
TO be specific, at Sprint all sensitive data was put in a "Shred Bin". This meant anything from customer address, phone numbers and info to detailed network drawings with server names, IP addresses and such. Going to a small company, we have invoices dating back a half dozen years with credit card numbers in an unlocked filing cabinet. How many small companies expose their customers' data through oversights like this? I would suspect the number is staggering. Most businesses really just don't think about it because they think, 'Well its been OK for years'. Kinda like leaving the front door unlocked. You may be OK for a dozen years but all it takes is one felon escapee jiggling your front door to change your world.
Now the small company I work for has policies in place. We shred sensitive data, lock up dead-tree with customer info, etc.
Just a different prespective I haven't seen someone post yet.
John
Either way, the fact that they'll actually have to spend money to get/keep/use the data will drive them bat-shit crazy.
Doesn't seem likely to happen. As it stands now, it's *your* responsibility to keep the information in your credit report accurate. Of course you don't have to, but when you need the services of a company which uses your credit report and it's out of order, you suffer the consequences. How to get out of that trap?
Yeah, as non-American watching that I was looking at Canada going "Wow, everyone just leaves their doors unlocked all the time!", then it gradually became clearer that he just meant people leave their doors unlocked when they're home, which was followed by the realisation "you mean in America everybody keeps their doors locked even when they're home??"
I would often leave mine unlocked even when I'm out [for short periods anyway - I don't have a drug dealer], but I have flatmates so it's not a decision that would be appropriate for me to make.
While I don't know of any "proof" that Aluminum causes Alzheimers other than it was often found in the brains of people who have the disease, Aluminum ions are toxic and this is well documented.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1515068 1
Arch Toxicol. 2004 May 19 [Epub ahead of print]
Mitochondrial viability and apoptosis induced by aluminum, mercuric mercury and methylmercury in cell lines of neural origin.
Toimela T, Tahti H.
Medical School, Cell Research Center, University of Tampere, 33014 University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Mercury and aluminum are considered to be neurotoxic metals, and they are often connected with the onset of neurodegenerative diseases. In this study, mercuric mercury, methylmercury and aluminum were studied in three different cell lines of neural origin. To evaluate the effects, mitochondrial cytotoxicity and apoptosis induced by the metals were measured after various incubation times. SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma, U 373MG glioblastoma, and RPE D407 retinal pigment epithelial cells were subcultured to appropriate cell culture plates and 0.01-1,000 micro M concentrations of methylmercury, mercuric and aluminum chloride were added into the growth medium. In the assay measuring the mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity, WST-1, the cultures were exposed for 15 min, 24 or 48 h before measurement. Cells were allowed to recover from the exposure in part of the study. Apoptosis induced by the metals was measured after 6-, 24- and 48-h exposure times with the determination of activated caspase 3 enzyme. Mitochondrial assays showed a clear dose-response and exposure time-response to the metals. The most toxic was methylmercury (EC50 ~0.8 micro M, 48 h), and the most sensitive cell line was the neuroblastoma cell line SH-SY5Y. Furthermore, there was marked mitochondrial activation, especially in connection with aluminum and methylmercury at low concentrations. This activation may be important during the initiation of cellular processes. All the metals tested induced apoptosis, but with a different time-course and cell-line specificity. In microscopic photographs, glioblastoma cells formed fibrillary tangles, and neuroblastoma cells settled along the fibrilles in cocultures of glial and neuronal cell lines during aluminum exposure. The study emphasized the toxicity of methylmercury to neural cells and showed that aluminum alters various cellular activities.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cm d= Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1514982 4
J Inorg Biochem. 2004 Jun;98(6):1129-34. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidants prevent aluminum-induced toxicity in cultured hepatocytes.
Abreo K, Sella M, Alvarez-Hernandez X, Jain S.
Department of Medicine, Louisiana State University Medical School, Shreveport, LA, USA.
Cellular Al accumulation has been shown to alter iron metabolism and induce peroxidative injury. Therefore antioxidants could potentially reduce or prevent peroxidative injury in Al-loaded cells. To test this hypothesis we assessed the effect of the antioxidants N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), catalase, superoxide dismutase (SOD), and tetramethylpiperidine 1-oxyl (TEMPO) in abrogating Al-associated cell toxicity and melonyldialdehyde (MDA) accumulation in mouse hepatocytes. Mouse hepatocytes (MH) were grown in media containing the minimum toxic concentration of Al (100 microg/L as Al-transferrin). All antioxidants protected MH from injury as assessed by cell growth and enzyme leakage into media. The antioxidants did not affect Al uptake by MH, protect MH from lipid peroxidation or decrease the reactive iron content of MH. Although antioxidants protected Al loaded MH from injury the mechanisms of this effect are unknown.
Aluminium-induced changes in hemato-biochemical parameters, lipid peroxidation and enzyme activities of male rabbits: protect
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
... this just proves my point. Public transit is reliable for industry because they're organized enough to see that it's so. I've tried riding rail across the country. My train was about 4 hours late because we had to pull over to let a freight train through. Freight gets precedence over people. Industry gets precedence over citizens.
The ohio trolley system was actually a model of efficiency when it was in use. Some systems actually do work well. Of course, where I am (Chicago) public transit is a private company getting government subsidies whenever it can't pay bills, so we get the worst of both worlds. It can't be forced out of business through the 'free market' and we can't vote it out, either.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
you will find that gun owenership per capita is higher in Canada
Ummm... not according to the Department of Justice. The linked paper states that 22% of Canadian households had at least one gun, vs. 48.6% of American households. And yes, most were long guns (95% of gun-owning households). I suppose it's possible that gun owning households in Canada own more than twice as many guns as American gun-owning households, driving per-capita ownership over the American value. Either way chances are only one of those is in use at a given time, unless Candians go out armed to the teeth with all their guns at once... so the value of a per-capita ownership statistic in terms of crime is debatable.
To be fair, I think you missed Moore's point. It was not that guns are evil and cause crime. It was that America is currently living in a climate of fear stirred by the media and ultimately caused by American politics and values. He held up gun violence as of one of the worst symptoms of this culture.
Moore used Canada not as an example of perfection embodied in a nation, but as a foil to illustrate differences with the US. What you should be asking is *why* most guns in Canada are rifles and not handguns. Perhaps because Canadians feel less of a need for handguns, and perhaps because our stricter gun control laws are a reflection of the difference between the Canadian and American attitudes toward guns.
If Moore were Canadian, he'd be making movies about Canadian social problems and contrasting them with how other nations deal with them. Every nation has its faults, and every nation can learn from others.
Finally, I have to admit that I never lock my doors when I'm home. I do lock them if I'm going to be out though. His point was that we don't tend to lock them when we're at home. I find it shocking that anyone would actually find that odd.
hugh Portions
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
Have you heard of the Hutton enquiry?
Yeh the BBC is so the voice of the government that they constantly pointed out that the government claims of WMD's was complete Bull***T from the start? If the BBC is the governments moutpiece why did the government have to setup and rig an enquiry (The Hutton Enquiry) just to condem the BBC and clear themselves? Why is the BBC consistently the only station to question the governments policies instead of sucking up to them for favours? Despite Tony Blairs attempts to frighten and control the BBC it is more indipendant than ever, altough it does keep it's head down more at the moment.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
I considering Americanizing the spelling, but figured you could handle the translation relatively easily.
But you are right in a larger sense as well. There is no safe harbour. What with only sectoral privacy protection, and Patriot Act provisions for data snooping, both Europeans and Canadians have more than a little scepticism about the protection of personal information in the U.S.
Thanx,
John
When the going gets weird, The weird turn pro.
- Hunter S. Thompson
If it were public controled, how could GM buy it out. I assume it was private.
___
It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
This, for the most part, is bull. Walk into a local computer store, and you'll probably find someone who knows something about computers and can help you. Walk into a Wal-Mart and you'll find a slack-jawed, pimple-faced nitwit who is too busy trying to pick up Lou Ann in housewares to help you out.
Maybe that's a bad example. A better one would be if you walked into a small record store. They know music. They love music. They'll help you find a record, and maybe they'll point you to something else you might like. Wal-Mart, Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. don't really care about you, because there are thousands of other suckers who they can take money from. And the turnover is so high that they don't care about good service. So it's a trade off; limited hours and great service, or great hours and poor service. I'd take the former, but most people choose the latter because their jobs force them to run errands at weird hours.
The reason the small stores close is because they don't have the capital to pay someone to sit there doing nothing just in case you need to buy something. Also, most of them are run by one family, who also have a life.
As for alternatives to unhealthy foods: It's not that they're not available, it's that they're not readily available. Making healthy food involves selecting fresh produce, storing it, preparing it properly, and storing the prepared food properly. It's a lot of work for some people. It's easier to go through the drive-thru at Mickie D's and pick up some burgers. You don't have to cook it, and the only leftovers are some boxes and bags.
If alternatives were readily available, people wouldn't be able to start businesses specializing in preparing healthy food for people who don't have the 'free time' to cook healthily (a company in Chicago is making a killing in this area). And, no, frozen or boxed dinners don't count.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.