-Caveat Lector- This article from NYTimes.com has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Consumers Face Tricky Maze in Guarding Privacy October 17, 2002 By JOHN SCHWARTZ Businesses, responding to lawmakers and consumers, say they are giving customers more ways than ever to control how their personal information is used and sold. But, in fact, many companies all but frustrate their customers' attempts to exercise that control. Barbara Bechtold of Sacramento recounts the unending process of trying to keep companies from selling her e-mail address and the details of her credit card accounts, insurance policies and mortgage inquiries. When she tried to tell Pacific Bell not to share information that some phone companies sell - including calling habits - she found herself confronted with a voice automation system maze. "Push `1' for this, push `2' for this," she recalled. "Twenty different steps to say, `I don't want you to sell my information, please.' " John Britton, a spokesman for Pacific Bell, a unit of SBC Communications, said the company tried to make the process simple and that it shared information only among affiliated companies and did not sell calling data to other companies. Still, Ms. Bechtold said that most people, faced with too much twiddling and clicking, "will get disgusted and say, `Oh, forget it!' rather than try to get off those lists." For some companies, that might be the point. Facing new laws in half a dozen states and the threat of legislation in other states and in Congress, businesses have claimed to give customers more control over the use of their personal information. But these efforts are subject to abuse. Some online marketers, including some offering low, low mortgage rates, naughty pictures or seminars on dental office management, simply lie. "You are receiving this e-mail because you opted-in by requesting information or requested to receive special offers from an online purchase," reads one message offering online marketing services - spam to help people produce spam. Did you really ask for the message? Probably not. But many online businesses claim you gave explicit permission to receive them. Some states are taking on what they considerthe most blatant lies about whether a consumer gives permission to share or sell an e-mail address and other information. New York State has sued an online marketer, MonsterHut, over unsolicited e-mail messages, which MonsterHut insisted were sent with permission. A decision in the case is pending. Among more mainstream businesses, drafters of privacy policies have ways of confusing and frustrating customers. Consumer privacy advocates have complained about the practices at Yahoo, where members who want to tell the company not to spread around their e-mail addresses and interests or to send them e-mail offers had to click through more than a dozen boxes that were checked to accept the mailings. And even after this time-consuming process, the company "may update this policy," according to the site. "It's hard to imagine a greater exercise in futility," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington. The company has said that it values the privacy of its customers and notifies them of any changes in its privacy or marketing policies. At the Direct Marketing Association site (www.the-dma.org), consumers who want to remove their name from many junk mail lists find that they must sign up by mail, or spend $5 and provide a credit card number to accomplish the same task over the Internet. Putting one's name on a do-not-call list for telemarketers requires a second letter or $5 Internet payment. Louis Mastria, a spokesman for the organization, said the charge was "just to defray costs," not an attempt to deter consumers. Janice Abrahams, a Web site designer who operates an Internet site (www.privacyparts.com) devoted to online privacy practices, recently gave up after weeks of trying to create a page that would identify online services by their privacy practices. "I feel like I've been nailing Jell-O to a tree - with my head," she said. What is going on at many Web sites is no mystery to Penn Gillette, the magician and former technology columnist for PC Computing Magazine, which is now defunct. The choice offered is no choice at all, he said, when the decision is gently coerced before or after the fact in what is known as a "force" or a "magician's choice." As a rule of thumb, when someone asks you to pick a card, any card, he said, "if the guy is wearing a top hat, he's not giving you a real choice." The cost of this muddle, surveys show, is trust. A report released yesterday by the Conference Board, a business research organization, showed that just 31 percent of online consumers thought their personal information would be safe - a slight increase from 27 percent a year ago. Any company that makes a privacy misstep opens itself to public excoriation. When Yahoo changed its policies earlier this year to make it clear that it could send e-mail and paper mail and even make sales calls to its tens of millions of registered users, it set off a storm of protest. Outbursts have followed similar moves by eBay and AOL Time Warner's America Online. David Medine, a lawyer in Washington and a former privacy official for the Federal Trade Commission, said that even when given a choice few consumers went to the trouble to shift their privacy options one way or another. "Where you set the default is where 95 percent of people will end up," he said. But that does not mean they are happy with the result, he added, or that their trust in the online world is not damaged. The challenge, privacy experts say, is to find ways to give people choices that are meaningful and easy to exercise. L. Richard Fischer, a Washington lawyer who deals with privacy issues, cited an Indiana initiative as an example. Last year that state created a single system for citizens to place themselves on a do- not-call list for telemarketers by calling a toll-free number or filling out an online form. Even though the system requires the customer to ask not to be called, the state received blocking requests from 784,000 household phone lines out of 2 million in the state; by this summer 1.2 million lines were on the list. New York State offers a similar service through a site (www.nynocall.com) on the Web. Lawmakers and regulators are beginning to turn up the pressure. Many of the new state and federal proposals draw a line: the more personal data - like that on health or finances, or Ms. Bechtold's phone use - requires explicit permission of the customer to be sold to outside companies. Other information, often including e-mail addresses, is protected by a less stringent standard that puts the burden on consumers to take action. The Federal Communications Commission now requires phone companies to get permission from customers before selling "sensitive personal information," including data on who customers call, when they make calls and how long they talk. In Congress, a bill sponsored by Senator Ernest F. Hollings, Democrat of South Carolina, would require any Internet service provider to get explicit permission from customers before sharing or selling sensitive data. "There's a lot of money involved when you go after private information and turn it into a business," Senator Hollings said. A spokesman for Mr. Hollings said that the bill, which was passed by the Senate Commerce Committee, would probably not move forward in the press of unfinished business at the end of the current Congressional session, but said that the senator expected to bring up the bill next year. Minnesota has passed a similar law requiring customer approval before Internet service providers can sell personal data. Laws that exceed federal standards by requiring customer permission before financial institutions can share data have been passed by Alaska, Connecticut, Illinois, North Dakota and Vermont. But there is counterpressure as well. Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, has introduced a bill that would pre-empt state laws and set a lower national standard for online privacy protection than would the Hollings bill. And in the area most consumers would identify as the most critical - medical and health insurance information - the Bush administration recently rolled back a Clinton administration proposal requiring patient permission for sharing medical data among doctors, hospitals and other health care providers. Ultimately, Mr. Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy Information Center said, companies will learn that meaningful consumer consent is good for business. It is, he added, "not only the right thing to do, but the profitable thing to do." http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/17/business/17PRIV.html?ex=1035858847&ei=1&en=2037c07685e49c86 HOW TO ADVERTISE --------------------------------- For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters or other creative advertising opportunities with The New York Times on the Web, please contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] or visit our online media kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo For general information about NYTimes.com, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@;listserv.aol.com/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
