Slashdot Mirror
Privacy Policies Only as Good as the People Enforcing Them
Techdirt is reporting that while we all know privacy policies may not matter much in the grand scheme of things, a recent study shows that it may be even worse than originally surmised. It seems that the real issue is with who has access to personal data and what they are able to do with it. "of course, it's not just the people reading the policies that don't seem to understand them -- it's those in charge of living up to and enforcing the policies. A new study surveyed a bunch of executives, including both marketing execs and those in charge of enforcing the privacy policy, and quickly discovered that marketers have a very different concept of 'privacy' than privacy officers. Not surprisingly, they don't see anything wrong with sharing all sorts of data that seems to horrify privacy officers."
What Privacy Policy?
Survey statistics from the real article:
Those numbers just back up what we all believed anyway, right? I mean, is this really news? Or just news with different numbers?
The strength of a chain is only that of it's weakest link. We recently had a proposal to implement NAC and they're constantly tightening policies. Most solutions however are easily circumvented and rendered incapacitated by only one person or device.
As usual, the problem with computer and/or network security is not necessarily the computer (unless you're running Windows) but the people sitting in front of it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I, for one, would seriously like to see a survey conducted across a wide ranges of job types and industries, polling employees about how compotent they feel they are at their job. I get the feeling a rather large number of people are just desk-fillers, who happened to be able get through the interview process, only to realize they have no idea what they're doing. And the same people have bosses who are just as incompotent, so everybody keeps their job.
Seriously. Google the phrase "except as allowed by law", you will find tons of privacy policies that look like this "BlahCo does not share your data except as allowed by law".
Oh great! They won't break the law. That's comforting. Thanks for spending money telling me how you won't do anything to break the law. You'll just distribute my info to anyone to whom it is legal to do so.
How about "BlahCo will not share your data except as REQUIRED by law." Oh no, that would stop their marketing efforts....
True, although it's worth noting that the enforcement of the US Constitution is ultimately the responsibility of US citizens.
There are some companies, that just plain lie. In one such instance, Deniro Marketing, they were provided a unique e-mail address, and now that e-mail address is getting spam for drugs, enhancement products, stock tips, etc.
I have had other companies (versuslaw.com) try to claim that "you must have been infected with a virus that distributed your address book." Of course, I run OS/2 and Post Road Mailer. Nobody writes virii for OS/2 and Post Road Mailer does not run scripts or anything else. Of course, I had another company blame it on their fulfillment people.
Fight Spammers!
Shit stinks
When my oldest daughter was born, the first time I changed her diaper I said "Wow! A miracle baby! My kid's shit don't stink!
Two weeks later I almost gagged changing her, I was ready to call the EPA. Later I found that no newborn's shit stinks. It only stinks after the baby has bred bacteria in its bowels.
Shit does not, in fact, stink. Bacteria stinks. You might actually need to run a scientific experiment to determine this statement's validity.
The article would be a lot more newsworthy is the researchers had found surprising data rather than what everyone expected.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Marketers are rewarded for increasing sales / revenue / market share and so would view anything that can do that as a good thing to do.
Privacy officers, OTOH, are trying to protect customer data and so have a different outlook and reward structure.
My point - this is why strategies (Financial / Customer / Process) need to be articulated at the C level and reviewed and outcomes monitored on a regular basis - so everyone is on the same page.
What really bothered me was this:
And in 2005, data broker Choicepoint sold more than 145,000 individuals' personal data to Nigerian scammers it believed were legitimate marketers.
In another ongoing case, Ponemon founder Larry Ponemon says he is consulting with a major financial institution currently being investigated by several states' attorneys general in a major data breach attributed to an e-mail marketing partner. The company, Ponemon says, gave data from six million customer accounts to a marketing firm in Southeast Asia, where it was eventually posted to a Central Asian site dealing in black-market credit card numbers.
As criminals grow in sophistication and are able to co-opt crocked government officials you'll probably see more off this - why phish when you can buy the data you need outright?
Setup a shell company, buy the data you want and go to town (and anywhere else you want) on somebody else's dime. Off course, as corporate losses mount from such fraud the corporations will push for tighter controls simply because it starts to hit them in the wallet.
I had someone charge airline tickets on my card - I had flight numbers, ticket numbers and names and could not get the airline to cancel the tickets; even after I told them it was fraud and the charges were disputed. Right now fraud is just a cost of doing business I guess.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The best systems are the ones that take advantage of people's laziness to help them. If it required filling out a form in order to give out any information on a customer I bet you'd see far less information being given out. On the other hand, if you can give out the information easily, you're more likely to give it out freely.
The more it costs people (in time) to give out your information, the safer your information is.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
. . . in this little gem from the Forbes article:
Translation:
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
A classic example of this is Ameritrade.
I set up an account with them, using a single-purpose email address, amtdcrowell06 at lightandmatter.com. Notice the amtd on the front, which was a unique prefix I chose just for use with them. I started getting spam like crazy. Strangely enough, the spam was all about stocks -- pump-and-dump stuff. Ameritrade tried to blame it on a virus, which wasn't very plausible, since I was running FreeBSD, postfix, and mutt. They tried to blame it on a brute force or dictionary attack, which also wasn't very plausible -- the prefix doesn't really consist of dictionary words, and 13 characters, consisting of a mixture of letters and digits, gives a total of 10^20 possible addresses that would have had to be checked by brute force. I wouldn't have minded if it was a myspace account or something, but these were people who had large amounts of my money. I migrated my account to scottrade. Years later the news broke that ameritrade had leaked tons of email addresses. They blamed it on some unknown insider. Since people had been telling them about the problem for years, you'd think they'd have clued in a lot earlier. It's amazing how bad an internet-based company can be at the internet thing. If any slashdotters are using ameritrade, you might want to think about switching to some other company. (Ameritrade's web interface also had some functionality that didn't work properly in Firefox on Linux.) You can transfer your portfolio from one company to another without having to pay capital gains, and without incurring transaction costs.
Find free books.