Slashdot Mirror
Borders Books Customers, Watch For Database Opt-Out Email
An anonymous reader writes "That email you might be getting from Barnes and Noble might not be spam, but rather your only chance to prevent the comprehensive record of your buying history at defunct arch-rival Borders from ending up in B&N's data warehouse. You have15 days after the email arrives, assuming that it ever does, since chances are the email address you originally signed up with Borders is long gone." For that very reason, this sounds like a good place for the terms of the bankruptcy to require opting in, rather than opting out.
It's terrible, I tell you, somebody isbiased against having their personal information sold to who-the-fuck-knows who, without their consent, unless they manage to respond to an email, likely sent to a nonexistent address, that will probably be written in a style that is calculated to throw spamassasin into a killing rage, because he may or may not have implicitly 'agreed' to a contract of adhesion at some point in time.
Why can't somebody be more fair and balanced?
Oh, wait, of course; because there is no "other side" to this story, just customers getting shafted.
I always knew there was a reason I never gave Borders SHIT when they asked. And boy, did they ever ask. More like DEMAND.
I realize the importance of the general principle here (that companies shouldn't be allowed to treat customer db's as assets). But as a practical matter in this case, does it really matter? Is Barnes and Noble knowing my book buying history any different than Borders knowing it? If I were so paranoid about B&N knowing it, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have bought on Borders under my real name in the first place.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"For that very reason, this sounds like a good place for the terms of the bankruptcy to require opting in, rather than opting out."
This makes no sense? Why would anybody op in for more marketing?
On a side note, Borders in in bankruptcy. That means the judge gets to void any contract they like and sell any asset they like - like marketing lists. If we want to address this, it needs to be addressed at the Federal level.
without their consent
You consent when you clicked the "I agree" button while signing up. I agree that this is a shitty deal, and we live in a time where you can't buy a pack of tictacs without signing away basic rights and something should be done about this ... but lets not delude ourselves.
against having their personal information sold to who-the-fuck-knows who
That pretty much happens all the time. That's why I was kind of surprised when this became a news item. And again, not saying it's not a bad thing, just saying it has kind of become the norm. You have to try pretty damn hard to not do business with companies who sell your data and don't even make a secret of it.
According to the email I received, go to www.bn.com/borders and enter the email you registered under. You'll need access to that account to click through the confirmation email...
Generally I'm a fan of opt-in and agree that should be the option, but the bankruptcy court's job is to recover the maximum amount of money for the people Borders owed money to. The database is worth more opt-out, so don't expect a change there. Of the options available, none really good, B&N getting the database is not that bad. I have a buying history with Borders, Amazon and B&N, so integrating my buying history from Borders with B&N is a far preferable outcome to the database being sold to some marketing company that would resell my buying habits to spammers all over the world. We give these companies access to our information to get slightly better deals, if you are really concerned about your privacy, pay cash and refuse the discounts, or lobby congress to make your purchasing habits your property and not the property of the company you are buying from.
I got the email last week. I'm fine with B&N knowing what books I bought at Borders. Now maybe B&N will realize how much more I spent there because of coupons and start offering coupons themselves.
You did consent. You just didn't read the agreement you made with Borders fully if you think you didn't.
The URL you want is: http://www.bn.com/borders which redirects to: http://ebm.cheetahmail.com/r/regf2?a=0&aid=266639891&n=100
Full text of the aforementioned email from B&N below.
Dear Borders Customer,
My name is William Lynch, CEO of Barnes & Noble, and I'm writing to you today on behalf of the entire B&N team to make you aware of important information regarding your Borders account.
First of all let me say Barnes & Noble uniquely appreciates the importance bookstores play within local communities, and we're very sorry your Borders store closed.
As part of Borders ceasing operations, we acquired some of its assets including Borders brand trademarks and their customer list. The subject matter of your DVD and other video purchases will be part of the transferred information. The federal bankruptcy court approved this sale on September 26, 2011.
Our intent in buying the Borders customer list is simply to try and earn your business. The majority of our stores are within close proximity to former Borders store locations, and for those that aren't, we offer our award- winning NOOK digital reading devices that provide a bookstore in your pocket. We are readers like you, and hope that through our stores, NOOK devices, and our bn.com online bookstore we can win your trust and provide you with a place to read and shop.
It's important for you to understand however you have the absolute right to opt-out of having your customer data transferred to Barnes & Noble. If you would like to opt-out, we will ensure all your data we receive from Borders is disposed of in a secure and confidential manner. Please visit www.bn.com/borders before October 15, 2011 to do so.
Should you choose not to opt-out by October 15, 2011, be assured your information will be covered under the Barnes & Noble privacy policy, which can be accessed at www.bn.com/privacy. B&N will maintain any of your data according to this policy and our strict privacy standards.
At Barnes & Noble we share your love of books — whatever shape they take. We also take our responsibility to service communities by providing a local bookstore very seriously. In the coming weeks, assuming you don't opt-out, you'll be hearing from us with some offers to encourage you to shop our stores and try our NOOK products. We hope you'll give us a chance to be your bookstore.
OMG...they went bankrupt and sold a portion of their company to...to...to...um the other big box book store.
Um, gee, considering 90% of those who went to Borders also frequently B&N. Is this really an issue. Yes, I am sure there is that rare handful of people who were so offending by the fact that B&N put Glenn Beck's book on a front stand that they vowed never to do business with B&N again.
But seriously, for most book reading folks. We're not bothered. And heck, we're waiting for that 40% off one item B&N coupon to all former Borders subscribers. ;-)
I really don't think ANYONE but the MORONIC are concerned when a company goes out of business and merges/sells off their info to a single other business in the same market.
Those of us concerned with privacy are worried by the likes of a company continually selling their lists off to any business that wants it. To make all this hype over a passing of the torch is just ridiculous.
In fact, it's kind of like a dying man looking to his his brother, and greatest rival, and saying "Take care of my family for me when I'm gone."
Oh, wait, of course; because there is no "other side" to this story, just customers getting shafted.
Shafting the customers seems to be SOP these days.
Service doesn't seem to be an issue, because the competition doesn't give that either, so now competition is defined in terms of who can shaft the customers the best.
--
Ben Dover.
I got to say, I dont care in this case, unless B&N has a history of selling their customer data I don't know about, that is.
But this is just a company that (from my understanding) has exactly the same line of business than a company I entrusted my purchase data to. Not only that, now, if I want to buy books, the only big chain option is Barns & Nobles so I would likely restart my history there anyways.
So, why so many are making a buzz over this?
If this was Google or Facebook buying the data to "better target ads", I'd be hunting my junkmail to dig out that email and make sure I opt out.
so now competition is defined in terms of who can shaft the customers the best.
Yup. Best quote on this I've heard (and have no idea where it is from and am paraphrasing from fuzzy memory):
"the biggest deciding factor on who to do business with is who uses the best lube."
If you're trying to make a blanket, universal declaration, yes it's evil. In this specific context, though, you have the database of a worldwide book retailer bought by another one that's more or less equivalent, who plans to use it for more or less the exact same purpose in the same way as Borders.
Now, things might be different if the mailing list were purchased by some religious group who planned to scour it for "unwholesome" purchases to identify "sinners" and make their lives miserable... and that's why there should be a degree of judicial oversight and a legal requirement that any such transfer be approved by the court, and only to a purchaser with the intent and means of using it in the same way for substantially the same purpose as before. Barnes & Noble clearly falls into that category. Amazon mostly does (no actual brick & mortar stores). Wal Mart or Buy.com would be a slippery case. The New Reformed Church of Jesus Christ the Vengeful Redeemer (and its 17 members, not including the psychotic preacher's family) from somewhere in rural Mississippi would be an obvious example of the other extreme. The hard part is drawing the line in a way that makes it easy for someone like B&N to buy it, and impossible for someone like the NRCJCVR to buy it.
A reasonable compromise might be a law that placed the data in escrow, and allowed its purchaser a single opportunity to contact the individuals via email and allow them to either formally opt in and allow their data to be handed over to the purchaser, or do nothing and have their data be permanently destroyed 6 months later. With a further rule that no single database can be sold to more than 3 potential purchasers, and that anyone receiving the first email can explicitly opt out of both the current offer and all remaining ones with a single click.
I can see why some are objecting to this specific transfer for the sake of having a consistent policy, but hysteria over it is just making the broader cause look silly.
You consent when you clicked the "I agree" button while signing up.
I know this is the state of the world and of the law, but I don't think it's Right. My armchair understanding of contract law is that a contract is only valid when the parties have a "meeting of the minds". If I click a checkbox without reading a contract, then plainly there is no meeting of the minds. Furthermore, even if I DO read it, I'm not a lawyer thus cannot possibly understand it, and thus plainly there is no meeting of the minds. The only "contract" which does not require a meeting of the minds is the law.
So, what would I propose? I propose that we have two thresholds for contracts:
1. A person is presented with a contract, which is read to him word-for-word by a personal attorney which he himself has paid for. The person asks questions about anything he doesn't understand, and the lawyer has the responsibility to explain things that are commonly misunderstood. The person then signs the contract with his written signature (or digital signature which must include a personally held secret) and the contract is stored for as long as it is to be valid. If any of this is not done correctly, the contract is invalid and the law applies; OR
2. The law applies.
That would put the responsibility for good consumer-producer agreements onto the political system, where I think it belongs. The current free-ish market for license agreements is, I think, Bad. I think this proposal would result in a Better World, and I'm a political moderate whose policy preferences are for whatever will lead to a Better World.
The rest are nerds on sites like Slashdot pretending that they represent any kind of majority opinion
Well, okay, but just to be clear, I think the nerds on Slashdot are making the argument that segmenting data with opt-in is the Right thing to do even if it is not the Popular thing to do.
I have my own domain and email server. Every company gets it's own email address. I don't want to get from a company anymore, or I start getting spam to a specific address, I simply delete that address. You know, like I did to Border's email address when they went out of business.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Can't anyone here speak politely without swearing? Please be polite.
This is largely my view.
In general, I don't think people should have to make legal agreements every time they buy something. There should be a set of common laws that dictate the saner of the stuff found in every agreement, and probably some give n` take on the other stuff. Once in place, business and consumers should implicitly be bound by these rules. Any extra agreement, as you say, should involve a lawyer.. not a button. If a business can't operate within the terms that society dictates, and their customers are unwilling to lawyer up to make purchases.. then they just can't do business.
Of course, putting my cynic hat back on, who do you think will have more influence over those laws. The average consumer, or the big businesses with the cash?
The New Reformed Church of Jesus Christ the Vengeful Redeemer operates a summer camp in Greenville, Mississippi. But, the church is actually located across the river, in Arkansas. And, yes, all the kids at summer camp happen to look like muppets. That is one of the dangers of inbreeding, after all. Where do you think Jim Henson got all his ideas, anyway?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
The Toysmart precedent, which was used by the FTC here, is that selling the information is allowed only if the purchaser is in the same business and agrees to obey the same privacy policy. While it does violate any pledge not to sell your data at all, selling data under these circumstances can't cause most of the harm that selling your data normally causes. It's not as if they would be allowed to sell it to Facebook or Publisher's Clearing House.
About the only realistic situation I can think of where someone would be okay with one bookstore having their information but not with another bookstore having it would be if they charged frequent customers more than infrequent customers (something Amazon has been known to do) and getting the information from the other bookstore pushed you into the frequent category.
It's the previous and ongoing sharing.
This is my idea for a novel. In a future world, not too distant, everything you buy is known by multiple corporations, immediately. If you buy a new shirt and slacks, well, you get an offer on your deck for a deal on a new belt and shoes. If you buy cereal, you get a prompt directing you to where the new fortified milk is.
As they fully develop your profile, they start sending you specific advertisments, everywhere, so that inevitably you only see stuff that you *should* be interested in buying. If you decide out of the blue to buy a new hat, for instance, well, before you can complete the sale there are offers on your deck to consider. Looking for a new piece of furniture? You not only get search results for all kinds of related or similar stuff, but you get offers based on your price flexibility. Or to put it less kindly, you get offers for stuff priced as they think you ought be be paying. Discounts from higher-priced stuff. If all you wanted was a cheap, cute watch, well, you'll have to go to a cheap, cute watch store, cause when you walk into a regular watch store the clerks already know what price strata you should be looking at, and they direct you to those display cases. And the price tags? Magic - they are all electronic, linked to the master, so (kinda like Kohl's) the prices change depending on who's in front of the case. Or go blank if there is too much diversity among the buyers. This is not even fantasy.
Oh, and if you're short of funds? Some stores won't even open the door for you.
Imagine the fun when your account is hijacked, and you seem broke. You can't even approach a bank to check your balance. You're outcast. A few bits here or there, an enterprising individual that skimmed your ID, and you're not just broke, you're locked out of your own apartment, since you can't afford it any more. Your employer can't pay you since your account is dead, so you're fired.
The point is, once this marketing data is shared enough, it becomes YOU. My objection is to the sharing. They should disclose where the data goes. I don't believe for a moment that my history with Borders stayed with Borders, and I don't for a moment believe that BN will keep it to itself. Once the publishers also get the data, it's out of the bag. I have no hope of every controlling it.
And I never did.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I consented to Borders. Not whomever scarfs the data up after Borders goes TU.
The agreement you consented to explicitly gave them permission to give your data to other parties they do business with, are bought by, or merge with. Was spelled right out (and is in a depressingly large number of similar agreements). Should it be legal.. hell no.. but it's reality.
There's also the fact that I have a nook already, so any data B&N can glean from buying my data is just the few books I bought from Borders instead of them. Not really a big deal to most people who frequent bookstores. Most have purchased items at both retailers.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
Which makes it a LIABILITY for Borders, as far as I'm concerned.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Quite so. The majority usually won't care, even if not caring today can mean major problems decades down the road. They depend on others giving a fsck.
As Plato noted, democracy only works as long as the demos are educated and take an interest.
Not really a big deal to most people who frequent bookstores. Most have purchased items at both retailers.
This needs points. At first I thought to myself, "Hrm, I probably already deleted that email. Damn."
Then I thought to myself, "Wait, B&N already has an entry for me. Heck they probably have MORE on me since my Borders purchases tended to be in-store while B&N was online."
So...yeah...even if I opted out, nothing would come of it.
Technically, a contract has two elements. First is offer and acceptance, and the other is consideration.
The offer Borders made was to sell you a book at a certain price AND to agree to whatever other terms ("I agree to -terms-"). By purchasing the product, you've agreed to the terms of the sale (offer and acceptance).
The consideration part is interesting, because contracts for no money exchange (or exchange of goods of value) aren't valid (it's why you have contracts saying you agree to pay $1). That happens when money actually changes hands (for online orders, when the item shipped and your credit card charged).
You're free to not agree to the contract (cancel the purchase), or amend it (if you want to go through the trouble) and present a counteroffer.
So your act of purchasing a book pretty much shows you agreed to the terms of sale. Also, the fact that consideration happens afterwards means if they make a pricing mistake, they can cancel your order as the contract hasn't been formed yet (no consideration has been exchanged). However, once they ship and charge you, they can't come after you for more money.
Yet so many companies still bother to write flowery privacy policies that boldly claim that your personal info is yours and will NEVER be sold or shared.
Borders didn't even do that. Their policy explicitly stated that they _could_ give your data to companies they merge with, aquire, or are bought out by.
No. I don't realize that. I realize that if I didn't agree to a contract, Borders would do with my data what the law allows, which is a lot LESS than what their contract stipulates.
Totally agreed. In very similar ways, I count on other people caring about feeding starving Africans, fighting against human rights abuses in Iran and China, building housing projects in Atlanta, prosecuting wars in Afghanistan -- pretty much everything. I do have opinions on those matters, I just don't feel them strongly enough to do much about them, aside from vote. I happen to be the kind of person who cares about the effects of copyrights and the legal ramifications of click-though licenses, so I do a small amount of advocacy in those areas. How grand to live in a world where we can specialize.
But to be "accepted", don't you have to have a "meeting of the minds"? (I don't know the answer to that; IANAL.) If I click a checkbox saying I read a contract, but I didn't actually read the contract, then no reasonable person could say that I did in fact read and understand the contract. For instance, when I bought my house, a human being sat me down in a room and went through the mortgage document with me paragraph-by-paragraph and explained it and had me sign it on each page.
Here's what Wiki says:
Meeting of the minds (also referred to as mutual agreement, mutual assent or consensus ad idem) is a phrase in contract law used to describe the intentions of the parties forming the contract. In particular it refers to the situation where there is a common understanding in the formation of the contract. This condition or element is often considered a necessary requirement to the formation of a contract.
That last sentence is interesting -- especially the word "often". Maybe fore click-thru licenses, the minds don't have to meet. I mean, APPARENTLY they don't, since the licenses have in fact been enforced, and it is obvious that the minds did not meet.
Really?
Would you like to point what what law, exactly, stops someone from selling your address, phone number, books you've bought, etc?
Because I don't know what universe you live in, but such laws do not exist in America.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Well gosh, I guess I can do your research for you. I'm a bit busy, but you can start here:
http://www.privacy.ca.gov/privacy_laws.htm
http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/glbact/glbsub1.htm
http://www.law.state.ak.us/department/civil/consumer/4548.html
http://government.dc.gov/DC/Government/Data+&+Transparency/Consumer+Protection/Consumer+Information+101/Consumer+Personal+Information+Security+Breach+Notification+Act
http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/30_14_17.htm
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/1349.19
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/guide/protect/laws.php
Telecommunications Act (1996) Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)
Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of 2003
Shall I keep going? or are you prepared to admit that in this very same universe that we share, here in America, there are in fact laws governing the use, protection, and sharing of personal information? The laws aren't what I personally want them to be, but they exist, and the whole point of what I was saying is that the current hands-off free-market approach is BAD, and would be LESS BAD if there were MORE LAWS in this area -- a point which survives your assertion that the laws don't exist. Actually I don't have time to keep looking things up for you, so if you aren't prepared to admit it, then your denial will have to be the end of the discussion.
My final point, as a question to you, would be why would Borders even have a contract, if the contract didn't expand its rights beyond the legal defaults? Why would it bother to pay a lawyer to make up such a contract? Why would it bother to present the contract to consumers? If there were no laws governing it, and they could do whatever they want, then they would, no contract required. It doesn't even make sense that they would tie their own hands with their own contract, resulting in a lesser ability for them to do what they want to do.
Hey, idiot, none of that has the slightest bit to do with what we're talking about. Google 'privacy laws' does not magically make them relevant the conversation.
The first link is a overview of California law, none of which is relevant. The second link is for banks. The third link is about security breaches and social security numbers, as is, obviously, the fourth link. The fifth is about identity theft. The sixth is about security breaches.
The seventh, interestingly, is about the few specific laws on that topic. There actuallyare specific laws protecting specific customer records for specific businesses, such as video rentals
Now, SHOW ME WHERE A LAW COVERS BOOK PURCHASES, or shut the hell up and stop pretending random google searches prove your point.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Thanks for moving the goalpost, now I can ignore you in good conscience.
From my original post:
Would you like to point what what law, exactly, stops someone from selling your address, phone number, books you've bought, etc?
From my newest post:
Now, SHOW ME WHERE A LAW COVERS BOOK PURCHASES, or shut the hell up and stop pretending random google searches prove your point.
Yeah, I sure 'moved the goal posts', you idiot.
The law forbids no one from selling your name. The law forbids no one from selling your address. The law forbids no one from selling your book purchases. Hell, the law doesn't prevent them from just outright publishing that info to the entire world. (It might stop them from doing that with your email address, I do not know.)
You seem to think citing random legal overviews of the privacy law you found on Google disproves this. You know how to prove something is illegal? You cite the actual law making it such.
But, oh, I forgot, I 'moved the goalposts' from 'Show me what law makes selling book purchases and address and phone numbers to third parties' to, uh, 'Show me what law makes selling book purchases to third parties' . (Perhaps in your head that's only illegal if addresses and phone numbers are sold with it, or something.) Well, I will happily amend that back to the original if that is what concerns you:
Would you like to point what what law, EXACTLY, stops someone from selling your address, phone number, books you've bought, etc?
It is not permissible to produce a big list of links that have absolutely nothing to do with such a law in response. You must cite exactly a law, which is done by saying something like US Code Title 15 Chapter 1 3. (Or multiple such law that, together, do this.)
If this is difficult, be aware that on almost every page you linked to, such laws were correctly cited, and you can just copy their cite. Of course, the law on those pages had nothing to do with the issue at hand.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?