PRIVACYnotes

PRIVACYnotes Discussion List Archives
 

Home | Privacy Links | Opt-Out

   



Archive


PRIVACYnotes #1

PRIVACYnotes #2
PRIVACYnotes #3
PRIVACYnotes #4
PRIVACYnotes #5
PRIVACYnotes #6
PRIVACYnotes #7
PRIVACYnotes #8
PRIVACYnotes #9
PRIVACYnotes #10
PRIVACYnotes #11
PRIVACYnotes #12
PRIVACYnotes #13
PRIVACYnotes #14
PRIVACYnotes #15
PRIVACYnotes #16
PRIVACYnotes #17
PRIVACYnotes #18
PRIVACYnotes #19
PRIVACYnotes #20
PRIVACYnotes #21
PRIVACYnotes #22
PRIVACYnotes #23
PRIVACYnotes #24
PRIVACYnotes #25
PRIVACYnotes #26
PRIVACYnotes #27
PRIVACYnotes #28
PRIVACYnotes #29
PRIVACYnotes #30
PRIVACYnotes #31
PRIVACYnotes #32
PRIVACYnotes #33
PRIVACYnotes #34
PRIVACYnotes #35
PRIVACYnotes #36
PRIVACYnotes #37
PRIVACYnotes #38
PRIVACYnotes #39
PRIVACYnotes #40
PRIVACYnotes #41
HIPAA

PRIVACYnotes Discussion List
Protecting Privacy is Good for Business

Respecting Privacy on the Web

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Published by: Mike Banks Valentine
www.privacynotes.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
July 11, 2002 Issue # 017
----------------------------------------------------------------------

.....IN THIS DIGEST.....

// -- MODERATOR COMMENT -- //

"ClickZ Spam Challenge" ~ Mike Banks Valentine

// -- NEW DISCUSSION -- //

"Digital ID & Public Identity?" ~ Internetweek Poll ~ Moderator Comment

// -- CONTINUING DISCUSSION -- //

"Privacy Fee?" ~ Moderator Comment ~ Eric

"Privacy Policy Company?" ~ Moderator Comment ~ David

"Privacy Advocacy" ~ Eric Norlin ~ Moderator Comment

// -- PRIVACY NEWS -- //

"The Latest in Privacy Issues"

----------------------------------------------------------------------

// -- MODERATOR COMMENT -- //

The following is a copy of a letter I sent this week to Rebecca Lieb, executive editor of internet.com's eCommerce/marketing channel. This was in response to her article titled, "Spam: Call to (What?) Industry Action". At the end of that piece, she offers a tantalizing tidbit when she suggests,

"If you, ClickZ's readers, can come up with an actionable plan for fighting spam collectively, as an industry, ClickZ promises to commit energy and resources to the project. We need consensus, plans, and strategy. Tell us what you think can be done. We'll keep you posted."

I'd like to encourage Privacynotes readers to contribute your best ideas on curbing Spam, before it destroys the killer ap of the web, email. Here are my comments to Ms. Lieb:

<START>

Rebecca,

The Truste initiatives bear looking at, but I expect only the same vague and watered down guidelines followed by marketers due to overwhelming self-interest and competitive concerns.

>> TRUSTe, the nonprofit organization widely known for its leading privacy certification and >> seal program, and ePrivacy Group, a respected privacy consulting, training and >> technology company, have joined forces to launch a groundbreaking email certification and >> seal program to bring consumer trust to commercial email. Under the banner “Trusted >> Sender,” this new program includes beta testers Microsoft, DoubleClick and Topica. >> Announced in January.

http://www.truste.org/about/TrustedSenderReleaseFINAL.html

I am certain that no marketing or advertising company online will ever reduce their apparent effectiveness by offering lower numbers than competitors offer. Although there are a few struggling to create the appearance that they oppose data aggregation and appending practices, I don't believe them for a second. It would kill their business in the current market climate.

There is the non-option of reverse filtering which blocks all but approved senders and/or subject lines.

http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/18180.html

I'd love to be involved and/or informed of any initiatives that come from your articles.

I trust you are aware of the piece by Jeanne Jennings this week at http://www.clickz.com/em_mkt/opt/article.php/1367711

As a small business I use a filtering service for my own account which cleans my inbox of about 4,000 spam messages a month. I'm a list host for multiple email lists with a combined total of about 10,000 members, small by most standards, yet those lists generate a virus induced (from subscribers) and malicious load of spam I can't tolerate or manage without a tool like this.

The New York Times did a short piece this week on Filtering Services, including a quick mention of http://spamfilter.website101.com ! (Now I've made it to TWO of the nations biggest print publications!)

As a marketer, I am fiercely opposed to spam, insist on double opt in for my own lists and have spoken publicly in articles and my own forums about being trapped between abusers and accusers. http://WebSite101.com/SpamFilter/spamcop_vigilanties.html

As you can clearly see by my signature line below, I am also a privacy advocate. That involves keeping my own identity and that of others from spammers, criminals, scamsters and Big Brother. Clearly, a solution is long overdue and it sure won't come from most marketers and advertisers under watered down AIM guidelines and DMA posturing.

Please let me know of any action resulting from discussion or action on your own article and consider joining the Privacynotes discussion list to contribute your opinion on the spam issue.

------------------------- Mike Banks Valentine Privacynotes Discussion List Protecting Privacy is Good for Business http://www.privacynotes.com/lists/iprivacy/summary.html
SUBSCRIBE: mailto:Privacynotes-join-request@list.privacynotes.com

 

===> TOPIC: DIGITAL ID & PUBLIC IDENTITY?

From: Internetweek Poll

What role will efforts to build public identity platforms such as Microsoft Passport or the Liberty Alliance play in your enterprise's authentication and single-sign-on strategies?

http://www.internetweek.com/question02/question042502.htm

[ moderator comment: ]

Digital ID is central to the privacy issue and internetweek is seeking feedback from the online community. While it is clear that many online publications such as InternetWeek and ClickZ and our own Eric Norlin's DigitalIDWorld are keenly interested in public feedback on these core issues. Where do you stand? This forum needs your input as well. Chime in with your own opinions.

 

// -- CONTINUING DISCUSSION -- //

===> TOPIC: PRIVACY FEE?

From: Mike Valentine

I'd like to re-ignite a little spark from last week that I expected to turn into an Arizona-sized blaze, but somehow it attracted no comment from subscribers. Maybe everyone was in a hurry to put out their own fires last week, but I'd like to encourage discussion around this topic as it is a very powerful idea cloaked in a puny news story (217 words) published last month. Maybe I'm biased. ;-) I'll just reproduce the post from Eric Schwartzman below and request that readers give it some extra thought and let's talk about the idea a bit.

===> TOPIC: PRIVACY POLICY COMPANY?

From: Eric

According to tech consultancy Forrester Research, which published a report this week about online privacy, consumers would be willing to sacrifice their privacy for a fee. In a survey sampling 6,000 consumers, 36 percent of women said they would allow their web browsing to be tracked for a $5 a month discount from their Internet service provider. 33 Percent of men said they would also be willing to be tracked for a fee. Forrester said women are more likely to allow themselves to be tracked than men, since men are more likely to frequent porn sites.

New York Times reporter Bob Tedeschi wrote a technology brief about it in today's (May 19) business section (Page C4).

http://makeashorterlink.com/?P21F62E21

Eric Schwartzman www.schwartzmanpr.com

 

===> TOPIC: PRIVACY POLICY COMPANY?

From: Mike Valentine

I know there are consultants on this list who could answer the question posed last week by David Hauser. Although it was possibly resolved offlist, I'd suspect that many readers of Privacynotes would be interested in an answer to that question as well. I'll leave it to whomever is interested in the business to answer a clearly commercial question. One that will be archived permanently by Privacynotes for access in future (hint-hint). This is an opportunity that doesn't come often on discussion lists. ;-) Once again, David Hauser's question:

Hello,

I was wondering if you or someone on the list had a suggestions for a person or company to help write a privacy policy for me?

Best Regards, David

 

===> TOPIC: PRIVACY ADVOCACY

From: Eric Norlin

Mike Valentine said: >> Do you think all of this belongs in one (Homeland Security) central database? <<

No, and I would argue that -- from a biz perspective -- it is NOT moving that way. Passport's original centralization has been altered to a distributed plan, and none of MSFT's upcoming identity-based platforms require centralization (trustbridge, .NET or Palladium) -- in fact, they all push for decentralization. In turn, the members of the Liberty Alliance (folks like AMEX, United Airlines, GM) are explicitly opposed to centralization, in that they do *not* want to share customer data with each other. To that end, Liberty's soon to be announced spec will be a token-passing spec that doesn't allow any customer info to pass.

As for the government's use of digital ID technology, that is an entirely different matter. The battle over privacy in the gov space has actually been going on for quite some time. EPIC reports that the attempts to come up with a National ID have been numerous and futile over the years. Of course, things are a bit different this time.

My personal opinion is that there will be a national ID -- and, as with most government initiatives -- it may turn out to be either bad or good.

As for Homeland Security linking together databases: people ask me sometimes why i'm so lax about the idea of the government knowing everything about me. Admittedly i'm biased -- I worked in the world of intelligence for a time -- the idea of them knowing everything doesn't bother me because they already do.

None of the above would seem to indicate that I'm operating under "blind

trust" -- and i can get more detailed, if you'd like.

tks ejn Senior Editor, Digital ID World www.digitalidworld.com

 

// -- PRIVACY NEWS -- //

Moderator note: There are two ways to access previously listed privacy news stories. One is to visit Privacynotes archives, the other (simpler) way is to visit

http://privacynotes.com/privacy_news.html where I also keep a privacy news archive.

From Filters to Forwarding: Ways to Fight Junk E-Mail Internet service providers and filtering companies like Brightmail are on the front lines of fighting spam. But there are many things that consumers can do on their own. Prevention Set up multiple e-mail addresses. Use one for personal e-mail and one or more disposable ones, those you would not mind abandoning if need be when registering at Web sites, posting to news groups or taking part in chat sessions. More ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/27/technology/circuits/27TIPS.html

WIMBLEDON, England, July 2 Some of the top players on the women's Tour are not comfortable with the idea of a lab technician's knocking on their front doors unannounced. But if the Tour can find the money, officials would like to begin out-of-competition doping tests in the next two years. "I just don't think they have any right to see what's going on inside your body if you're not doing anything," said Jennifer Capriati, who advanced to the Wimbledon quarterfinals today. "I've never heard of anything to be concerned about anyways.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/03/sports/03WIMB.html?tntemail1