I've been alerted to several complaints on slashdot about our service as an invasion of privacy and First Amendment rights. The BusinessWeek article cited on slashdot is, unfortunately, inaccurate and misleading. We offer an electronic clipping service that serves much like a search engine for companies looking to see where they have been mentioned, such as online publications (like the online edition of the Washintong Post, for example.)
The benefit of the service is to find out if someone is intentionally manipulating stock, trading on inside information or spreading inaccurate rumors. Rumors, as you know, can cause stock to rise or fall -- hurting investors like many of you. Our customers have an obligation to investors to know what is being said so they can set the record straight -- just as I am doing now. We offer the service to companies who do not have the time to do the searches manually, but the information is all publicly available. We are not doing anything underhanded.
Once malicious or some criminal behavior is determined to be caused by an anonymous entity, some companies choose to attempt to find out who the source is. We do offer a separate investigation service, through a specialized licensed investigation firm. If an anonymous source is causing a rise or fall in stock price by spreading inaccurate information or trading on inside information, companies may need to find out who that person is for legal reasons.
It is unfortunate that the article confused the services we offer, flat-out inaccurately "reported" what we do and portrayed inaccuracies. It is erroneous that we seek out company critics. eWatch does not ever remove any posts online for other companies. That is up to the company to pursue.
We really do share your concerns about online privacy and we value the First Amendment. We feel our service is one that helps to protect those online from rumors and falsehoods.
Slashdot Mirror
Dear slashdot members:
I've been alerted to several complaints on slashdot about our service as an invasion of privacy and First Amendment rights. The BusinessWeek article cited on slashdot is, unfortunately, inaccurate and misleading. We offer an electronic clipping service that serves much like a search engine for companies looking to see where they have been mentioned, such as online publications (like the online edition of the Washintong Post, for example.)
The benefit of the service is to find out if someone is intentionally manipulating stock, trading on inside information or spreading inaccurate rumors. Rumors, as you know, can cause stock to rise or fall -- hurting investors like many of you. Our customers have an obligation to investors to know what is being said so they can set the record straight -- just as I am doing now. We offer the service to companies who do not have the time to do the searches manually, but the information is all publicly available. We are not doing anything underhanded.
Once malicious or some criminal behavior is determined to be caused by an anonymous entity, some companies choose to attempt to find out who the source is. We do offer a separate investigation service, through a specialized licensed investigation firm. If an anonymous source is causing a rise or fall in stock price by spreading inaccurate information or trading on inside information, companies may need to find out who that person is for legal reasons.
It is unfortunate that the article confused the services we offer, flat-out inaccurately "reported" what we do and portrayed inaccuracies. It is erroneous that we seek out company critics. eWatch does not ever remove any posts online for other companies. That is up to the company to pursue.
We really do share your concerns about online privacy and we value the First Amendment. We feel our service is one that helps to protect those online from rumors and falsehoods.
Sincerely,
Nancy Sells
Vice President
eWatch