Slashdot Mirror
FTC Recommends Conditions For Sale of RadioShack Customer Data
itwbennett writes: The FTC has weighed in on the contentious issue of the proposed sale of consumer data by RadioShack, recommending that a settlement with failed online toy retailer Toysmart.com be adopted as a model for dealings going forward. Director of the FTC's bureau of consumer protection Jessica L. Rich wrote in a letter to a court-appointed consumer privacy ombudsman that the agency's concerns about the transfer of customer information inconsistent with RadioShack's privacy promises "would be greatly diminished if certain conditions were met." These include: that the data was not sold standalone, and if the buyer is in the same lines of business, they agree to be bound by the same privacy policies.
Of requiring the buyer to commit to the same privacy policy if you allow that privacy policy to be broken?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
But if we are the product, can we sue for our share of the payout?
Since only coprorations are now people and people are not people, we'll all have to form little corporations of course, in order ot get our due.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
I knew that my information would get out eventually. In the last 15 years I would only go in to buy specific things (none in the last 5+ years). Every time I would pay cash and give the clerk false information. I'm so very glad I did.
Now everyone's going to know that I by "loose capacitors", ahem!
never seen one without "policy subject to change without notice."
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
...all those Goddamned batteries...
What are the odds that the privacy policy states that it can be rewritten at any time without needing to notify the subjects?
I'd abide by that policy...for as long as it took me to draw a massive cock all over it and replace it with one saying I can sell your data to whoever I like.
"Clever. Still... anybody with that kind of record is gonna make a mistake. I want all party members in the tri-state district to monitor the city, county and state police on their CBs. Sooner or later Mr. Blues is gonna fuck up, and when he does... he better pray the police get to him before we do."
So, as a foreign visitor, I walk into a RS shop to get a SD card. I pay for the goods, and that's all.
What gave RS or its debtors the right to turn my personal information into merchandise?
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
I gave a fake name and random zip code all the times I went there in the 90's and early 2000's, looks like it paid off.
I hope there's not really a John Q. Public living at 1 Happy Street*, Beverly Hills, 90210. If so... apologies in advance, mate.
* From My Blue Heaven
"What the frig is the address here?"
"How should I know... Number One Happy Street!"
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
The last time I gave them anything was a phone number in the early '80s that I've put much distance since.
It was revealed that the FTC's biggest concern is Radio Shack's subterranean cache of over 35,000 tons of yellow slips of carbon paper dating as far back as the 1960s, which correlate names, addresses and phone numbers to detailed lists of discreet electronic components. Who knows what kind of embarrassments would ensue if all of those dots got connected with modern data mining techniques.
What happened to 3rd parties like Apple and AT&T that not only required Radio Shack to sign off that the data collected while purchasing their products was NOT Radio Shack's property AND the fact that both companies (maybe others too?) have legally asked that that data is not transferable? I think that's an important point that needs a LOT of attention so other manufacturers can step up and protect their customers.