posted 01-10-2001 11:51 AM               

Several months ago, Amazon.com caused some rumbling among its users when it updated it's privacy policy to allow for the option (somewhere down the line) of selling its user information. Ebay caused a similar ruckus today when it announced that in order to correct a software glitch, it would be changing the setting on its users' preferences to "yes" in answer to the almighty "can we share your contact info with telemarketers question."

FYI, Ebay users have until a certain date to change it back. For more on this story click here.

Some PA residents recently got peeved when they received their 2000 tax forms and found that they had not been mailed in envelopes which meant that their Social Security numbers were easily accessible on the forms. Accessibility to SSN's has become a hot topic due to identity theft concerns.

My question is this, just how important to you is the privacy of your financial records, spending habits, addresses (e-mail or regular)? Is this, as some have said, an over-blown non-issue, or is this the litigation maker of the 21st century?

posted 01-11-2001 11:49 AM               

While certainly a valid argument, it might be a tough pill for many people swallow. Many people feel that their privacy is a right on par with Constitutional freedoms and that is not necessarily true.

Dave, I'm going to check out those links because I'm interested to know if David Brin qualifies his arguments according to types of info. Sure a marketing company could argue that it has a right to make names and addresses public, because those are technically available elsewhere. But what about purchasing histories, financial records, and medical histories? You could argue that having this information available puts people at risk, not just for criminal acts, but discrimination, as well.

More news from the privacy front: Disney has offered Toysmart.com $50,0000 to destroy its customer database. Here's part of the back story courtesy Business 2.0:

quote:

---

Toysmart's privacy policy assured customers it would not share personal information with third parties. But soon after the company went out of business last May, it took out an ad in the Wall Street Journal to sell the database--setting off a firestorm of controversy. The Federal Trade Commission, along with 42 state attorneys general, and TRUSTe--a privacy group that had granted Toysmart a seal of approval--swiftly filed suit to prevent the company from selling the information, which included names, addresses, and credit card numbers.

---

It seems that many big businesses feel that they should at least appear to side with public opinion on this one. Whether their actual business practices will support that image . . . We'll have to stay tuned.

posted 01-11-2001 12:26 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pattie Gillett:
Many people feel that their privacy is a right on par with Constitutional freedoms and that is not necessarily true.

---

Bingo. A lot of people think privacy and anoymity are vital to freedom. Brin turns it around and says that you have to do what is necessary to ensure freedom -- such as equalizing the flow of information -- before you can talk about privacy.

quote:

---

Dave, I'm going to check out those links because I'm interested to know if David Brin qualifies his arguments according to types of info.

---

Well, you can just read the book, since it's on our bookcase, and the first article I linked to is the first chapter of the book.

(I'm a stinker, I know.)

quote:

---

Sure a marketing company could argue that it has a right to make names and addresses public, because those are technically available elsewhere. But what about purchasing histories, financial records, and medical histories? You could argue that having this information available puts people at risk, not just for criminal acts, but discrimination, as well.

---

Which is why anyone that wants to gather it must be willing to have the same information about himself/herself made public. Equifax wants to collect info on your credit history? Fine, but Equifax's directors have to put their credit reports on the Equifax website for anyone to see. Brin's case is that once info flow becomes multi-directional, people will be more restrained in what they collect because of their own desire for privacy.

That said, this is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and there are types of information that Brin says should be held private. He just doesn't think privacy is the one-size-fits-all solution either.

posted 01-11-2001 01:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Thomer:
We, in general, want the lower prices and better service that comes from companies having better information about our wants and needs -- so I'm not sure it's fair to attack those companies for using that information. I need to think on this some more.

---

Very true. I think the problem is that many people may be looking at this from only one or two sides: They don't want telemarketing calls at dinner so they don't want companies to have their name and number. Ditto on the junk mail and email. It's inconvenient. Yet they like it when Amazon's software anticipates their needs and interests based on buying history. They want the magazines they buy to print articles that are relevant to them but they do not want the publishers to know their income, sex, or age. I've even met people who think it's "ridiculous" to have to submit a copy of their pay stubs when they apply for a loan. I'd love to know how they think the financial institution plans to decide whether they get the loan but I digress.

I spent a year working at a market research firm in which our main task was to get people to agree to sit through an hour-long survey (for little if any compensation) about what magazines they read. It was used to set national advertising rates and determine the demographics each publication attracted, sort of like what Nielsen does for TV. Sometimes, the tactic that worked the best in getting the respondent to cooperate was to push the "this will help you in the long run" angle. The idea that they would have some influence on the articles, TV shows, products, etc. they used was very attractive to many people. My point is, many people are very willing to give up their privacy if they feel they are getting something in return.

This is also why con artists are so successful, by the way.

posted 02-05-2001 01:05 PM               

FYI, interesting article here seems to imply that many people really don't care about privacy, at least when shopping. I'm not sure how much I agree with that but hey, I've seen people be pretty careless with their info in the bricks and morter world, too.