 |
     |
|
|
Lose at the patent game -- twice; win in the market. Hmmmm..... From the Mercury-News: Apple loses 2nd patent on iPod. And haven't we all eventually discovered that that "killer idea nobody else could possibly conceive" actually is being done by others everywhere:
Legal experts said it's not surprising that other companies beat Apple to the patent office. Advances in technology prompt people to come up with remarkably similar inventions at the same time, said Stanford Law School Professor Mark Lemley.
In the fashion of the times, each year some copmlex of consumables marketing boards enlists the assistance of a medical researcher to determine the most recent dietary trend. As such some things come into and others fall out of favour. Stubborn people, like me fall for such things only when it suits our purpose (e.g., "See, I told you dear, eggplant does have a direct positive correlation with anyeurism . . ."). Otherwise, we ignore it and enjoy what we enjoy.
According to this story, apparently I can go to Starbucks with clear conscience and -- sadly -- just a little less rebelliousness. Coffee, apparently, now serves a valuable health purpose. Read it here: Coffee found to be high in health-giving antioxidants. The lead:
Coffee might soon be considered a health drink following a study showing it is a surprisingly rich source of anti-cancer agents.A study has found that coffee contributes more antioxidants - which have been linked with fighting heart disease and cancer - to the diet than cranberries, apples or tomatoes.
That's what the Customer Respect Group says . . . a little bit in the results of a recent survey of 464 North American companies' privacy practices (reported on c|net: Companies dinged on Web privacy). Actually, at the bottom of the article, it says that while "there's room for improvement, the privacy scores are getting better," and quotes someone from the research firm who says, "'Overall, companies are becoming more aware of the privacy concerns of users and, more importantly, they are beginning to act on this awareness by developing respectful privacy principles.'"
That's all good and well, but the area that needs to be improved is use of personal information for marketing purposes. Although hardly the most egregious form of privacy imposition (if it is at all), it is certainly the most sensitive. And, because it is all about perception and "competitive advantage" in this allegedly "consumer-powered" world, all the more reason for the disappointing results. How disappointing?
The Customer Respect Group, the Boston research firm that conducted the study, rated the privacy practices of a whopping 72 percent of 464 North American companies it surveyed earlier this year as "poor" with respect to reusing personal data for marketing purposes.That poor.
There were times, particularly while I was carrying residual "pregnancy fat," that I was arguably obese. I never liked it and have done something about it twice. I ate it on and then worked it off. Me. When some people, like my doctor, told me I could stand to take a few pounds off, I was indignant. Beneath it all though, I knew they were right. So, when an obese woman in New Hampshire seeks a sanction against a doctor who (probably somewhat urgently) told her she was obese and that it was killing her, it makes me nuts. But that's what's reported in today's Toronto Star: Obese woman upset MD hurt her feelings.
That's it. I refuse to get started down this road because it leads nowhere anyway.
The other day Sherry Cooper, Chief Economist at BMO, wrote about the ugly economic downside of a flu Pandemic. It was picked up by the Toronto Star (Flu pandemic could trigger a Depression, BMO warns). Today, the Globe and Mail is carrying a story of a similar sort, just a different spectre (A U.S. housing slowdown could wreak havoc: TD). The tone of this last one is:
Toronto-Dominion Bank warned yesterday that all it will take is for the climb in U.S. house prices to slow to more normal levels after their sharp, four-year upward race, as will inevitably happen. This is because new, real estate-based consumer wealth has been a key driver of U.S. expansion, which means any slowdown in the sector -- let alone a formal correction in house prices -- will likely have a dramatic effect, TD economist Beata Caranci said in a report.Sounds a little macro-bearish to me. Where are all the reports about consumer, executive, banker, . . . confidence?
Being involved with innovations and patents and getting new ideas turned into business opportunities, I can sympathize. Apple blunder gives Gates iPod royalty in today's online edition of The Independent.
I like my American colleagues by and large and am far from being a nationalist of any sort, so the following comments are practically impartial observation. Some people may know that there has been an international dispute between Canada and the US over softwood lumber tariffs for a decade or more. It has been raised to various tribunals among which I'm sure is GATT, likely the World Court (although that might be pushing it), and of course, the NAFTA tribunal. (For any who don't know, NAFTA is the "negotiated" free trade agreement between Canada, the US, and Mexico that replaced the previously "negotiated" agreement between Canada and the US, called the FTA. I've put the word negotiated in scare-quotes for a reason that will become apparent below.) Canada has persistently won in these settlement mechanism rulings: the tariffs levied by the US are breaches of international trade contracts.
Today, the Globe and Mail, among other outlets is carrying a Canadian-perspective story on the most recent state of the situation (U.S. 'slap' infuriates Canada). Won't ask anybody to read the whole thing, but lets pull apart some of the information presented.
First, this:
On Wednesday, a last-ditch NAFTA appeals panel rejected Washington's assertions that an earlier string of softwood rulings in favour of Canada broke trade rules. NAFTA panels have three times concluded that the United States failed to prove that Canadian softwood poses a material threat of injury to U.S. producers.OK, so much for the rule of law: didn't like any of the many consistent rulings made by the body that was agreed to be the final arbiter on international trade contract, so we're just going to ignore it.Under trade rules, if Washington can't prove Canadian softwood lumber poses at least a threat of injury to U.S. producers, it is obliged to scrap the duties on imports of Canadian lumber.
Wednesday's ruling should have forced an immediate end to the dispute.
But the United States says that the NAFTA ruling is inconsequential and that it has no intention of scrapping duties on Canadian softwood that exceed 20 per cent for some companies today, or refunding the $5-billion in levies collected since 2002. [Emphasis mine]
How about this?
Ottawa took pains to emphasize that legal battles such as the NAFTA challenge will not provide final resolution to the softwood dispute. Mr. [International Trade Minister Jim] Peterson said the only way to permanently settle the trade battle is through negotiations.WHAT? The only way to settle is through a "negotiated settlement?" I'm sorry, wasn't the trade deal a negotiated contract which provided the dispute resolution mechanism? Wasn't that mechanism employed repeatedly with the same result? How unbelievably retarded is this? Is Bernie Ebbers now in a position to "negotiate" a settlement to his situation? Typically the negotiated settlement comes before the arbitration of an adjudicator. Afterward, you take your lumps. I'm quite stunned by the naivity of the Canadians ("D'oh! Oh well, let's negotiate. What would you really like and let's do it. After all, THERE'S NOT A GOD DAMNED THING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT if you're not going to respect the situation and show some integrity.") and the Americans ("It seems that the judge didn't see it our way. Well, we tried to play nice for a while and make sure everyone did it our way. They didn't, so screw em. What can they do about it?)"I believe the only way to find something that is durable and provides predictability for the industry and the workers is through a negotiated solution," he said.
This was similar to Mr. [U.S. ambassador to Canada David] Wilkins's message yesterday. "We want a negotiated settlement," the ambassador said. "That is the only way to get finality on this issue."[Emphasis mine, again]
That is the way the world works. Call it the Golden Rule: Those with the gold make the rules. Call it a more sophisticated and subtle form of gunboat diplomacy. Whatever. The whole thing is stupid. And if this is how friends or brothers of the same mother deal with each other, it's no wonder the other hemispheres are "unfriendly" shall we say.
More on identity theft in this article in Techtree (India): Fax-Back Phishing Scam. The details:
The e-mails direct users to a Microsoft Word document hosted on a website and urge them to download a form, fill it out with their bank account details, including credit card numbers, PIN information and login details and fax it to a toll-free number.Notwithstanding that it may end up being stupidly easy to track down the end-point of that fax number [of course, the fax could be acting as nothing more than a re-router and putting the scanned data onto the Internet before it's transmitted to safety . . .], the part I love about this scam is it's Aikido-like approach.
People think that sending information over the Web is dangerous. Sending that same information by fax, we perceive, is far safer. One scepticism-obstacle down, so the only thing the phisher needs to do is be suitably convincing with the come-on. They use the perception of danger online to move people to do the same stupid thing offline. [Then, of course, they'll blame the Internet for the ID theft (see post immediately below).]
On the Sxip blog they've raise a study by Nationwide Mutual insurance regarding identity theft (30% of ID theft from the Internet. Having not read the report myself, I can only say that I found this recounting interesting:
one-third of those surveyed blamed their compromised IDs on the Internet, where they think their information was exposed to hackers. . . . Whereas, 21% said the information was stolen from their home, car, mailbox, garbage or a wallet or purse.The key is that it is the people "blaming" somebody or something for the cause of their problem. And, not knowing for sure how or where the information got out they perceive and then blameeither the Internet (1/3) or traditional "dumpster-diving" (21%) channels. Is that valid? Does it matter? That's what people believe. A few years ago, those figures would have been completely different -- I suspect even if the actual incidence of channel activity being 2% and 60% respectively. We are conditioned to look for and assign "probable cause."
Last week, I think, I posted about AOL's purchase of storage company, XDrive. Today there's a story out of Seattle about AOL's acquisition of local company Wildseed (where there are lots of former Microsofties: AOL buys mobile software company Wildseed. What's going on over there?
America Online Inc. has acquired Kirkland mobile software company Wildseed and set up a wireless division in Seattle as part of a larger effort to enhance the way people access music, games, calendars and other content on their cell phones.With the addition of Wildseed's 34 employees, the AOL Wireless division will now employ about 165 people in Seattle. The newly created division, which includes AOL Mobile, Tegic and Wildseed, is led by former Microsoft and Action Engine executive Craig Eisler. [ed. another!]
"Wireless is a big bet for us," said Eisler, who joined AOL last summer and was recently appointed general manager of the new division.
Here's the snip from a Globe & Mail story, Calling and clicking like never before. I needn't say more.
The amount of time Internet-using Canadians spend on-line has surged 46 per cent in the past three years to 12.7 hours a week, compared with an average of 11 hours spent listening to the radio and 14.3 hours spent in front of the TV, according to an Ipsos Reid survey.Among 18- to 34-year-olds, the Internet has become the most favoured medium, with the average on-line individual spending 14.7 hours a week connected, compared with 11.7 hours listening to radio, 11.6 hours watching TV and just 2.5 hours reading newspapers.
Anybody who's heard one of my in-person put-downs of the "privacy hysteria" that I believe is being fomented (that, obviously, in itself being a key part of the mentioned put-down tirade) knows that I am at least modestly skeptical. Particularly, using the example of the loudly privacy-concerned citizen who gives away his personal information in front of the grocery store for a free razor, I am skeptical about how broadly valid is the information that gets published about just how much a concern privacy is to citizens. A story such as this one in the Globe and Mail (New report plays down privacy fears) that reports on a report by the Crossing Boundaries National Council tends to support my skeptical view. Here's the money snip:
In a series of discussion groups, the Crossing Boundaries National Council, an organization stacked with prominent bureaucrats and politicians, found that Canadians do worry about the Big Brother nightmare of governments holding extensive files on citizens but most are willing to make trade-offs for better services as long as safeguards are in place.
In June, Sun paid $4.1-billion for Storage Tek. Today I saw in The Register that "AOL snaps up storage firm" XDrive. They had separate, business storage v. consumer storage reasons and markets to serve with their acquisitions. Still, what's going on? It shouldn't have been unpredictable given the amount of data being generated on a day-to-day basis by systems all over the world. But where's it all headed?
A little item in today's Globe & Mail quotes a study done by TNS and TRUSTe (Canadians support biometric I.D.: survey). Not surprisingly, the Canadian perspective shows that,
More Canadians support the use of biometric identifiers in government-issued identification, but worry that the costs might be prohibitive and that governments could abuse the system, a new survey says.Americans' support was not especially lower than Canadians' for embedded biometrics.
The more interesting thing -- in the paragraphs describing the whole report -- is that North Americans gravitate toward passport, drivers' license, and SIN/SSN as the de facto identifiers of choice. Many of us -- Phil, Dan -- thinking about this have at one time or another reluctantly conceded that the real broadbased, socially acceptable digital identity (root) credential may already exist. All that's needed is an heroic upgrade to the integrity of the system and application of the appropriate enabling technology . . .
Credit reporting is an invasion of my privacy. (Apparently, I'm on a privacy jag right now -- I'm sure it will pass with the lunar phase. Until then please bear with me.) I know it's ridiculous to feel this way . . . because our society demands and accepts the credit reporting structure for good and valuable reason. I am obviously wrong. Be that as it may, my reasoning goes like this: There is information about my current and historical commercial transactions and financial situation -- salary, credit outstanding, retailers I purchase from, etc., etc. -- that is extremely private. It is the effluent of bi-lateral (commercial) relationships that I maintain with others -- independently -- to satisfy theirs and my needs, whatever those may be. What makes a third party (the credit bureau) relevant or privy (in the legal sense) to that detritus except the singular desire of the collective of the "other party?" Why should a new, separate potential relationship require and also be privy to the details of my private activities with others? To me, the (potentially extraneous and superficial) knowledge about me that others are able to realize from that information, which is vigorously aggregated and analyzed, seems invasive and violating. I'll elaborate below.
This outpouring is the result of a little article in today's Toronto Star (Errors in credit scoring cost dearly) that harangues about errors in credit reports and the downside of (bad) credit scores. Here's a snip from the article:
It's well known that you can get a free copy of your credit report . . . But if you really want to know how clean or dirty you look to lenders, you need to know the score. This is a three-digit number, ranging from 300 to 900, designed to predict the possibility that you won't pay your bills.I left the question in at the end of the block gratuitously, but can't really argue with anybody creating a profit centre out of fulfilling a need or market demand. This was, however, the flavour of the article. My own trouble with the situation is a little more abstract.You can't get your score, however, without paying a fee. . . . Unless you pay $20-plus each time or persuade your lender to make a voluntary disclosure, you're in the dark about a key measure of financial health.
Lenders use credit scoring routinely to accept or reject applications and price their products. Why should credit bureaus turn this into a profit centre?
This is a hard position to rationalize in any coherent way because all aspects of it are completely understandable. The data repositories and knowledge assembled -- by record (i.e., you, me, and everyone else) -- exist because there is a need. The need is sensible: protection for money lenders. Lending money is a risky business (which is at least part of the reason for interest) and a sensible lender seeks to protect its money. There are at least two approaches to this: up-front and back-end. Back-end protection is relatively simple: coercion and occasionally physical penalty. The borrower repays or harm visits him/her. That's messy though and does not eliminate the potential loss of the investment should the borrower have to be "dealt with." It's much easier to take precautions at the front-end.
So civilized lenders ensure that they minimize risk up front. What can they do? Well, I had a bank once tell me that to obtain a $40,000 revolving business line of credit I could deposit with them $40,000. (That seemed a little unworkable to me.) That, of course, would severely stricture the volume of mortgage, car loan, and other highly profitable lending that could be done. It would also practically eliminate the, "Don't pay until 2006," volume-driving incentive of many a furniture retailer. The alternative is to assess borrowers' repayment ability and likelihood. Contrary to the investment industry's advice that "Past performance does not ensure future results," the consumer credit industry relies on history.
Perfect sense: in the absence of alternatives, making an assessment about a potential borrower based on past performance is not a bad thing to go on. Of course that information has to come from somewhere. Since it would be too cumbersome for every lender to approach all of each applicants' previous lenders -- after obtaining that person's agreement to do so! -- aggregators gather and assemble the data. We agree to it only because without a credit history that can be pulled up from an aggregator, we are nobody and can't get credit. So, we let potential creditors both gather and provide information to the credit history aggregators in exchange for the commercial relationship. A virtuous viscious cycle that takes a private relationship and effectively makes it public.
Don't be fooled. That information -- and more importantly, that knowledge (which is more dangerous and troubling) -- about you is public. It is allegedly available only to you and those who request it (after obtaining your consent). But you are never in control of that information. The value of what you want, consumer, and the unequivocal demand that you grant access to this knowledge about you is profoundly knit into the fabric of our consumerist life. It practically ensures that anybody who wants the information will get it. Sometimes, due to lapses in protection and security, even those who don't want it get it.
As anyone who has had to deal with a credit bureau discrepancy (especially following an identity theft) can attest, first you go through hoops to see your file, then it is practically impossible to amend that information file because it's not yours. The information and knowledge now belong to someone else -- and both the provision of the underlying data and the corroboration of its accuracy are in others' hands. It is not possible for you to add to, subtract from, or amend this very personal information by yourself. You have not that right or control.
All this is backdrop for my consternation about "privacy" in the information age. I think they are representative of others' similar challenges. Here it is: my notions about "privacy" specifically as it relates to me and as an abstraction generally is contextual and flexible. It defies hard and fast regulation. (As Groucho said, "Those are my principals, if you don't like them....I have others.") For example: I don't find junk mail or other solicitations, in person or on the phone, to be particularly invasive of my Privacy. I do believe them to be annoyances and trespasses upon my physical and mental personal spaces. Even within that, I tend to qualify in a purely personal and subjective way based largely on circumstance: personal interruptions on the street (like the time-share hawker in Cancun or the panhandler in Toronto) run from code-red invasions and demands through to merely annoying interferences with my plans for the moment. The first is more deeply invasive to me because it is commercial; the latter more troubling because it is equally annoying but also morally destablizing (but that's fodder for another post).
Phone solicitations are the most rank in my view. Why? Well, to begin with I think that all incoming phone calls are disruptive and invasive (but we're conditioned from youth for Pavlovian response to the sound of a telephone ringer). The phone solicitation is an especially unwanted and undesired imposition on my time and attention (i.e., my mental space). To make matters worse, the solicitor at the other end -- likely paid by success -- tends to be aggressive about ensuring that I comply with his desires which are, typically: to stay on the phone, to listen, to agree to something, and perhaps to permit the solicitor or his colleagues to either breach my physical space or make further phone calls. And they ask "confirming questions" proving that (a) they have some information about me and (b) they are fleshing out even more knowledge about me.
The question must be something like: "They called you up, so they have some information about you. Don't you think that's an invasion of your privacy?" In short: no. Why not? In my view, most of that information is publicly available in one form or another. And, even were it not, having certain information publicly available or known is the price of joining in and participating in a civilized social system. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a curmudgeonly hermit closed off from the rest of the world secretively conducting bizarre acts behind protective barriers. I come out and enjoy the world and interact with others. Sometimes I prefer to be anonymous and conduct my affairs without trace and obligation to stand up to that record. But most of the time, I am satisfied to be leaving little traceable breadcrumbs behind me. If one wishes to enjoy the company of others in this journey, one of the costs is to be known.
I realize this answers nothing. It may provide no new light on the subject. It may not even be clear what I'm trying to say. No matter. It had to be said.
In any event, I wrote a few papers some time ago under the umbrella of "Identity Planet" -- all available on the content/identity portion of this Site -- that went on at even greater length about ownership of information. It seems to me that what gets stirred up in this wondering about something as structurally well-woven into our society as credit reporting/bureaus is that maybe we truly don't own any of the information about ourselves. Maybe these effluents belong to somebody else and what is really going on is that we are trying to rationalize that reality with the desire to be in control of ourselves and our "information."
Greater minds than mine will have to mull through this. At least tonight -- I'm tired.
Three separate stories that caught my eye in the last 24-hours.
First, from Australian IT, a story entitled Banks question fraud report that notes how some in the US banking industry are taking up with a report from Garntner analyst, Avivah Litan. Why? Here's the top-note of what she has to say:
AN unprecedented wave of internet-based bank fraud has been enabled in part by banks that don't bother to check security codes on cash cards, according to a new report.If true, and I don't know that it is, what we have is another example of the means being available but unused -- kind of like laws on the books that simply aren't enforced.Roughly half of US banks in recent years have stopped checking codes embedded in the magnetic stripe of ATM and debit cards, making it easier for online con artists to suck cash out of consumers' accounts, Gartner analyst Avivah Litan said.
"The only reason they don't check these things is because they forgot about it," Ms Litan said. "Really, I'm furious."
Second item is about one of my favourite "trade" shows: Defcon. I've never been but would love to go. Frankly, I don't know why more people on the "right" side of the law don't attend. To know the enemies ways, says Sun Tzu, . . . (I think.) Anyway, BusinessWeek online dutifully carries a story (Hackers demonstrate their skills in Vegas) that has a spectacular quote from a security industry expert:
The Internet has become "crime ridden slums," said Phil Zimmermann, a well-known cryptographer who spoke at the conference. Hackers and the computer security experts who make a living on tripping up systems say security would be better if people were less lazy. [Ed. Note the unanticipated consistency with the previous block quote?]Gotta love it.To make their point, they pilfered Internet passwords from convention attendees.
Anyone naive enough to access the Internet through the hotel's unsecured wireless system could see their name and part of their passwords scrolling across a huge public screen.
It was dubbed the "The Wall of Sheep."
And, finally, a story I found on Physorg.com reporting on IBM's latest Global Business Security Index report (Report finds online attacks shift toward profit -- well, really, it had to happen eventually). A few culled highlights, although both the story itself and the underlying report are good reading:
IBM has seen a resurgence of targeted phishing attacks for money laundering and identity fraud purposes, believed to be largely driven by criminal gangs that have become more astute in the creation and delivery of such attacks. According to its latest Global Business Security Index, in the first half of the year, there were more than 35 million phishing attacks launched to steal critical data and personal information for financial gains.And, in another story I couldn't find when I wanted to post comes the prediction that ATMs are the new pot-of-gold on the hacker and crypto-thief's radar.Spawns of phishing threats such as 'spear phishing' . . . increased more than ten-fold since January of this year alone. Unlike in previous years, when viruses were mainly created and launched to slow down and cripple IT systems, these types of 'customized' attacks have shown their potential to defraud businesses, steal identities and intellectual property and extort money, while damaging the brand and eroding customer trust.
The ratio of spam to legitimate email continuously decreased over the course of the last six months, from 83 percent in January to 67 percent in June 2005, while virus-laden email increased fifty percent over the same period. . . . Hackers have turned toward more criminal and lucrative areas of directing attacks to specific individuals or organizations, often financially, competitively, politically or socially motivated. IBM's Global Business Security Index shows that in December of 2004, one in every 52 emails was infected by some sort of malicious security threat; by January it was one in every 35 emails, and by June, that ratio increased to one in every 28 emails - signifying a fifty percent increase from last year - a disturbing trend for businesses and consumers alike.
If you participate in a social group (like an "identity" or "privacy" community) which is having, wishes to have, occasionally has, or would have if given half the chance -- a conversation, is it an invasion of my privacy to be contacted by any one of the other members? I don't think so, even if that membership extends to a "market" in this crazy, consumerist world. Having said that, it would be nice to put everyone at arm's length once in a while. So who's responsibility is that?
Anyway, I got an email in response to an earlier post about the subject of privacy (I guess I just don't understand privacy): a butterfly-wing set of a post here on the other side of the world that has started something of a hurricane (or at least a stiff breeze) on the other side of the world based on the commentary and linked blog posts going up here, here, here, here, here, here, and here at least. (All of which is having a dark impact on my attempts to keep bandwidth on my blog's server down. . . .) It came from a privacy consultant in Ottawa, Murray Long. I've posted it in its entirety below because (a) he said I could and (b) it adds to the discussion. Before leaving you to Murray's text, I need to say that it still is troubling that issues and terms are being used interchangably when they shouldn't. Moreover, as I posted as a follow up to the original (I still don't understand privacy, but maybe it's a language barrier), the entire vocabulary matter will not go away by turning away from it. Anyway . . .
Hi TimothyI am responding to an item which I noticed in ISPI clips with the following heading:
This From: RecrusiveProgress, July 26, 2005
I guess I just don't understand PrivacyTim Grayson
July 25, 2005I get your point. In the privacy community, we have interchanged the word "privacy" with "protection of personal information" because it's an easier term to use, but as you point out, opting out of secondary marketing has little to do with a normative view of what "privacy" really is.
In the context of fair information principles, identification of purposes and consent are paramount requirements. As per Alan Westin's modern definition of
privacy in the information age, privacy in dealing with corporations is "the ability
to determine for ourselves when, how, and to what extent information about us is
communicated to others."The CSA Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information takes this a step
further provides the ability to control when, how and to what extent information of any type is communicated to us."In the context of PIPEDA (the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents act), corporations must explain purposes and seek consent before collecting, using or disclosing our personal information for any purpose.
In the case of low-level and non-sensitive uses of personal information (for example billing stuffers), implied consent is adequate - which can be construed as the right to opt-out. In the case of the bank that was the subject of the complaint that led to Michael Geist's article, this bank did not provide any such opt-out and argued that no personal information was ever used to send out the billing stuffers, as the bank machinery inserted the same information into every statement sent out, and did not in any way personalize the stuffers.
The fact that two other banks surveyed by the Privacy Commissioner's Office did
permit opting out of secondary marketing stuffers was enough to persuade the
Commissioner that this bank should also offer an opt-out. Of course, the
Commissioner first had to make a determination that personal information had indeed been used.You could argue that, if only the mailing address was used, this information, while personal, also qualified for use without consent under PIPEDA if it was a publicly available address (i.e. in the phone book). However, as a lot of listings are not in the book, this logic would not have applied to all customers and, realistically speaking, the bank was better off to cave-in on such arguments, accept the position taken by other banks and figure out a way to segment its statement mailing runs to satisfy opt-out customers.
In the bigger scheme of things, it is a picayune privacy victory. Yes, privacy
purists get the right to pot out of unwanted secondary mailings. They will still
get some stuffers with their bank statements as banks are required by law to send out some types of financial notifications. However, the secondary, third party stuff will all disappear.If only one to two percent of customers chose to opt out, it's not a big problem for marketers (although an added cost to the bank that may be borne by other customers - this is one of the interesting economic issues about privacy: with the market default position being we will send you information unless you opt out and with the cost of opting out, therefore, not built into the economic model, it is those people who don't care as much about privacy who bear the costs - which inevitably must be passed along somehow - of protecting the privacy rights of others. The social value placed on the preservation of human rights, however, makes it difficult to raise such issues. It would be like 100 motorists trying to argue that the sole pedestrian using a crosswalk should have to pay to have it installed.
If a lot of customers opt out, then marketers will simply find other - and more
intrusive ways - to reach customers. For example, householder mailings which do not use any personal information, while far less effective than bank-screened secondary mailings, might increase - adding to everyone's junk mail. Marketers might also turn to more telemarketing, etc. (although new legislation might curb this).I tend to agree with you that tis is a very insignificant privacy issue. However,
the right to refuse such secondary marketing is provided under PIPEDA and, to the extent that people complain about such issues, privacy commissioners are forced to make rulings accordingly.Murray Long
A couple articles last week from two British sources covering the same Pew Internet study: Research shows digital divide etched into US Net use out of PC Pro and Teens spurn email for messaging off the BBC's Website.
There's a lot of interesting things in the Pew survey, most of which will come as no surprise to people in the industries (wireless, Internet) or marketers dealing with teenagers. What I find spectacular in its inevitability -- and the inevitable surprise from technology proselytizers -- is the following (from the PcPro piece):
But it's not all bright shiny futures for high-tech-aware young adults. A digital divide is highlighted by Pew, which states that those teens who remain offline -- about three million people -- are clearly defined by lower levels of income and limited access to technology. They are also, accordeing to the report, disproportionately likely to be African-American.Surprise, surprise, surprise. At some level, somewhere, the stewards of every new technology will claim its ability to be a fantastic new social leveller. And it never, ever is. C'est la vie.
This contrasts with the findings that nearly all teens in households earning more than $75,000 per year are online, mostly with high-speed connections.