Marketing Execs And Privacy Execs Disagree Over What Companies Do With Private Info

from the data-leaks dept

Wed, Jul 2nd 2008 6:11am — Mike Masnick

We've already established that privacy policies are pretty much useless, no matter how much some organizations want to pretend they matter. First off, no one reads them -- and if you asked most people, they simply assume that if a site has any privacy policy then it automatically means they won't give away any personal details to others -- even if the privacy policy says exactly the opposite. In other words, someone could put up a privacy policy that says that it will reveal all your personal data to organized criminals, and most people would think that the site was safe. It's "privacy theater" designed to make people feel good, but that has nothing to do with real privacy.

And, of course, it's not just the people reading the policies that don't seem to understand them -- it's those in charge of living up to and enforcing the policies. A new study surveyed a bunch of executives, including both marketing execs and those in charge of enforcing the privacy policy, and quickly discovered that marketers have a very different concept of "privacy" than privacy officers. Not surprisingly, they don't see anything wrong with sharing all sorts of data that seems to horrify privacy officers. So, no matter who controls the policy (or where it's posted on a site), the real issue may be who actually has access to the data and what they're able to do with it.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: marketing, privacy policies

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Steve R. (profile), 2 Jul 2008 @ 6:51am

Double Standard
When it comes to business "data" and citizen "data" we have seem to have two standards. Business believe that they can expropriate private data at will. We already have had example where the medical profession has taken samples from patients (without their permission in some cases) and developed tests, patented those tests, and made money; and given the patient zippo.

Now if you, as a citizen, take business "data" such as a song you are deemed to be guilty of theft! Not only that, but as Mike has pointed out in other articles, the MPAA and the RIAA want to ignore due process. If they say you are guilty, you are guilty irrespective of the existence of any evidence.

Business' should NOT have a right to expropriate, at will, what is not theirs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: Double Standard
  I think business' know its not theirs. They just realise its easy money and not tottaly illegal.
  
  Ethics have little place in business, unless your a genius at it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joseph Wills, 2 Jul 2008 @ 7:26am

With apologies to Glenn Frey:

"It's the lure of easy money, it's got a very strong appeal."

Remember the movie "Night of the Living Dead?" All marketers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CN, 2 Jul 2008 @ 9:22am

Many lie...
Ever created a brand new email address (or forwarder), given it to just one place, that said they don't share the info, only to find several spams to that address within a day or so?

Even if they say they don't share it, some still do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Haywood, 2 Jul 2008 @ 10:39am
  
  Re: Many lie...
  These days I use a disposable Email address (like XXX@bugmenot.com) when I sign up for anything. What they have done by passing my info around and loading me with spam, is to encourage me to get more devious. I still get a little spam form before I got smart, but it is dwindling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:17am

Just all the much more reason to provide as little information as possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OrigRep, 2 Jul 2008 @ 11:25am

that's the job they do
A marketers job is to tell you how to think, what to want, and what ideals to have. They respect you like a puppeteer respects a puppet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
passingthough, 2 Jul 2008 @ 12:33pm

I've had the same email address for years. Only spam I seem to get is from my provider.

If you won't protect your data, no one will do it for you. Many will see it as a golden opportunity to drop a bit of extra change into their pockets at the expense of your time.

I no longer trust privacy policies and haven't for years, finding out what this article has just exposed long ago. The more insistent some place is about a correct email address is, the more suspicious I am of them. There are some that will go as far as to compare zip codes to states. No problem, I will search for a random city and pull up a zip just to satisfy them.

They will never under any circumstances get my real email. Privacy is up to you to enforce if you want it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brazel, 2 Jul 2008 @ 2:55pm

No matter what the marketers and PR people may say, and no matter how many people don't read the privacy policy, if the company writes a statement in a privacy policy and then ignores it, they can run afoul of the FTC. While the company may not be enforcing a privacy policy, there are notable cases where the FTC has enforced its authority to police privacy policies, and they have not turned out well for the companies involved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 2 Jul 2008 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re:
  While the company may not be enforcing a privacy policy, there are notable cases where the FTC has enforced its authority to police privacy policies, and they have not turned out well for the companies involved.
  But you fail to mention that there are many, many, many more where the FTC has done nothing and they have turned out very well for the companies involved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pete, 3 Jul 2008 @ 3:46pm

1984 updated for 2008

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
and...
Marketing is Privacy

[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All Seeing Eye, 4 Jul 2008 @ 2:33am

We are owned by the corporations. Our laws are those that they pay to have in place. Our politicians and representatives are their puppets. The only way to do anything about it is to change the way we allow them to do business. It would require a massive economic and social revolution, and I don't think we have it in us as a nation.

This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but with a whimper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]