Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Privacy The Almighty Buck

Online Shoppers are Willing to Pay More for Privacy 106

Posted by samzenpus from the don't-ask-don't-tell dept.
Caroline Matische writes "People are willing to pay more to buy items from online retailers who make their privacy policies clear, a new Carnegie Mellon University study showed. People were more likely to buy from online merchants with good privacy policies and were also willing to pay about 60 cents extra on a $15 purchase when buying from a site with a privacy policy they liked."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Online Shoppers are Willing to Pay More for Privacy More

Online Shoppers are Willing to Pay More for Privacy

Comments Filter:

  • Why privacy matters... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:18PM (#19418043)
    Privacy is central to our dignity and our basic human rights. Privacy ensures and protects our rights to free assembly and free speech, especially in areas where the governments would seek to curtail these rights. The right to privacy ensures our autonomy in the world and in our affairs. Think of your information as a gift you give to agencies and people you trust. How do you feel when any gift you give is "regifted." How do you feel when something you say in confidence is repeated and spread through your community, whether that is your office of group of friends. How would you feel if a friend gave your phone number out to every person who asked them. How would you feel if a friend revealed an embarrassing medical condition you had or a financial problem you were struggling with. Thinking of privacy in these terms helps you to see why your privacy is an important part of your life.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by BadERA ( 107121 )
      And in other news, water is wet, ice is cold, violets are blue, bears are Catholic and the Pope poops in the woods.

    • Re:Why privacy matters... (Score:5, Funny)

      by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:23PM (#19418101)
      Mod parent up for reinforcing his point by posting anonymously.

    • Why copyright matters: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      http://www.cpsr.org/issues/privacy/whyPrivacy [cpsr.org]
    • A line must be drawn, however, when it comes to fighting and eliminating crime. Individuals who rape children deserve no privacy. Individuals who sell drugs deserve no privacy. Disgusting politicians who accept dirty money for their campaigns deserve no privacy. There is a definite need for a restriction of "privacy" in it's basic sense... it's obvious in the society we live in today. At what point does the intrinsic need for privacy override the need to prevent societal decay?

      • Re:Why privacy matters... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Original Replica ( 908688 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @09:42PM (#19419229) Journal
        "At what point does the intrinsic need for privacy override the need to prevent societal decay? "

        Privacy has a lot of grey area to it, and I think different places in that grey area are appropriate in different circumstances. Sexual predators might need to be known to the local police and school officials, but not the media. Politicians' campaign donations need to be known to the media, but are not of special concern to local police. The trick is who gets to decide, what info is databased and shared. If someone goes to the doctor for an STD medication, should that info be attached to their online dating profile? If someone is in Alcoholics Anonymous, should their children's teacher be informed?
        There is a difference between allowing someone's reputation to follow them, and having institutionalzed gossip. But it's a tough call as to exactly where that difference lies. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=237213&cid =19375351 [slashdot.org]
        • Bullshit.

          "Sexual predators might need to be known to the local police and school officials, but not the media."

          The pervert's neighbors have a need (right?) to know. What better way to inform *all* ther neighbors than by releaseing the info to the media.

          "Politicians' campaign donations need to be known to the media, but are not of special concern to local police."

          This is just plain silly in that, if it is known to/published in media, the police will know by default. Besides, who is donating and how much to a

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by Kouroth ( 911586 )
            Might as well just dig a hole in the ground, line it with concrete and dump the poor bastards in. Yes they are sick but not every sick person should be damned for life. Some of them manage to get better after all. The problem with informing the public about these people is that they end up driven from their homes. People react with fear and then push them out. With full coverage they'd never find a place to live. Some would say 'good middens.' I say let them be monitored but let them also try and live. Torm

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        A line must be drawn, however, when it comes to fighting and eliminating crime. Individuals who rape children deserve no privacy. Individuals who sell drugs deserve no privacy. Disgusting politicians who accept dirty money for their campaigns deserve no privacy.

        Why should pharmacists (or bar tenders) have no privacy? Exactly what money is "dirty"...
    • As long as I don't:

      A) Get more junk e-mail
      B) Get more jumk mail
      C) Get telemarketers calling me

      I could really care less. I don't care what details they use for marketing research, no matter how personal.
    • You have lost all rights that you feel you must employ anonymously.

  • Ridiculuous (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rinisari ( 521266 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:22PM (#19418089) Homepage Journal

    That's ridiculous. Users should expect, no, demand privacy, not have to pay for it. Privacy should already be there, because the user has to trust the company to handle their data correctly.

    I won't trust a company that makes people pay for "extra privacy." That screams distrust to me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BadERA ( 107121 )
      You know, that was my initial reaction too. However, I don't think that's the notion that's conveyed by the study -- I'd like to think that it means merchants who protect privacy to begin with are rewarded for it. Unfortunately, I do suspect that this will translate into "how much more can I charge because I post a rigid and thorough privacy policy?"

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mrbooze ( 49713 )
        Or, to come at it from another angle, how much can I discount my prices in exchange for selling customer's information with their consent? Customers want to pay less for things, so how much are they willing to trade to pay less for a gallon of milk? How much is their demographic information worth to them?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by BadERA ( 107121 )
          Ouch. Painful, but probably true. Selling information probably equates to greater profit than the 4% boost the retailer gets from having privacy safeguarded.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mr_stinky_britches ( 926212 )
      In a perfect world, you are right, all online retailers should protect our privacy.

      However, in the real world..there are a lot of shady outlets which either haven't bothered to make their privacy policy clear or don't respect the privacy of their customers.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by dfetter ( 2035 )
        I don't know about your "real world," but in mine, businesses are forbidden from doing all manner of ill deeds, a few of which are:

        Fraud
        Theft
        Extortion
        Murder for hire

        When we as a society fail to prevent them--using "men with guns" as needed--from doing these things, it's a problem that we need to fix. It is not a time for a casual libertarian shrug and a bratty comment about some invisible hand--a hand frequently clenched into a fist, punching anyone who hasn't been born to wealth.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        However, in the real world..there are a lot of shady outlets which either haven't bothered to make their privacy policy clear or don't respect the privacy of their customers.

        It really dosn't matter if the policy is clear or not. If someone is a crook they will simply lie anyway. As well as it being trivial to write a policy full of loopholes.
        The only really meaningful policy would be one along the lines of "If you supply any customers' details to a third party without explicit authority (either from the c

    • That's ridiculous. Users should expect, no, demand privacy, not have to pay for it. Privacy should already be there, because the user has to trust the company to handle their data correctly.



      You mean, people should be more willing to buy at all from a company with a good privacy policy? Isn't that one of the things the summary says that the study found?

      What, exactly, of what is actually in the summary/article, do you find ridiculous?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by owlstead ( 636356 )
      I'm sorry, but personal data is worth money. So, inherently, the bad companies make more money, even if they sell a little less. This can keep their price down. Of course, I won't buy from them, and I find that good quality service is more or less linear with good privacy. Other buyers fortunately think so as well. So the good companies still have a business case, but they are somewhat more expensive most of the time.

      Just compare it with television. The ones with the most (annoying) commercials make the mos

    • Re:Ridiculuous (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Bongo Bill ( 853669 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:39PM (#19418247) Homepage
      It's not that good companies charge more. It's that bad companies charge less, because they have no obligation not to use that information to turn an additional profit.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RJ11 ( 17321 )
      Welcome to the real world. Most of the companies that provide "free" services to you online only do so because they're getting your personal information which can be resold. Few people are aware of this. For instance, American Express is rated as one of the most trusted companies, yet they have one of the most egregious privacy policies. Providing people with clear information on how their personal details are used allows them to make better decisions, as opposed to just their perceptions of the company

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AusIV ( 950840 )

      I won't trust a company that makes people pay for "extra privacy." That screams distrust to me.

      Did you read anything other than the headline? The summary even mentions that people are more willing to buy from a company that makes their privacy policy clear. Scenario:

      Retailer X sells widget A for $10, and makes it clear that they protect your privacy
      Retailer Y sells widget A for $9, and is ambiguous about their use of personal information.

      More people are choosing retailer X than retailer Y.

      I know this

    • Think of it as the cheaper prices being subsidized by third parties paying for your info.

  • Advantages of B&M retailers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:24PM (#19418107)
    I just say, I'm going to use my Ben Franklin Card today. If the store clerk then asks for my phone number or email address, I just remind them of the airtight Ben Franklin Card privacy policy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zCyl ( 14362 )

      I just say, I'm going to use my Ben Franklin Card today. If the store clerk then asks for my phone number or email address, I just remind them of the airtight Ben Franklin Card privacy policy.

      While this is true, I bet if you walk up to the counter wearing a ski mask, people are going to get the wrong idea. :)
    • A short while ago I paid cash in a local store (for three jack plugs) they asked for my name, phone, address etc. "Why do you want them ?" I ask. "For the gurantee" says them. "No thankyou" says I. "But we're supposed to get your details" say they. "Sorry, you can't have them" repeats me. Finally 3 attempts later they get the point and give up.

      So the next time I'm in there the same scenario comes up again and I save time by simply telling them that my name is Mr. John %STORE_NAME% before giving them the

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mbstone ( 457308 )
        Back when Radio Shack had this annoying habit, I would answer, "Ben Franklin, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.," and yep, the clerk would invariably type it in. I'm sure the White House mailroom still gets RS catalogs addressed to ol' Ben.

  • Newsflash: (Score:3, Informative)

    by Richard McBeef ( 1092673 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:25PM (#19418119)
    People look for the "shipped in plain brown packages" when buying porn related items.
  • Isn't the notion of a "company respecting user privacy" illusory? In other words, when you give your private information away, you're not giving it to another person. You're giving it to a corporation. If the management changes, if the shareholders demand a greater quarterly return, the same company can alter their "privacy policies" and sell all the information they like. Sure, a random user can sue, but can they afford the same kind of attorneys as the company? There's an old proverb about "what you

    • Privacy is not always temporary (Score:5, Interesting)

      by feepcreature ( 623518 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:41PM (#19418263) Homepage

      It varies, depending on to whom you give your information.

      In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.

      In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness. You could argue that resisting even the smallest extra expense is in the short term interests of their shareholders. Of course that ignore the possibility that ethical policies may increase customer loyalty, and better serve their shareholders' longer term interests - as well as being "The Right Thing".

      There is a lot of nonsense spoken about "impersonal corporations". Folk forget that it's actual human beings who make the "decisions of the corporation". Some of those people do good and some do evil.

      Maybe they should be held to account?

      • There is a lot of nonsense spoken about "impersonal corporations". Folk forget that it's actual human beings who make the "decisions of the corporation". Some of those people do good and some do evil.

        Maybe they should be held to account?

        That's a laugh. The whole point of incorporation is to shield the owners and the management from legal liability. Add in the factor of diffusion of responsibility - the bigger the company, the less direct personal responsibility any one employee has for any one policy - and the end result is practically guaranteed to be "impersonal."

        In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.

        This is really the only way to make it work. As long as the legal framework is such that customer's do not own the information associated with a business transaction, busin

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          The whole point of incorporation is to shield the owners and the management from legal liability.

          Actually the original idea behind a Limited Liability Corporation was only to shield the owners from creditors if the business failed. Their liability being limited to the amount they had invested, worst case senario being that they ended up with a worthless piece of paper.
          The idea of this protecting the executive is rather more recent.
      • In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness. You could argue that resisting even the smallest extra expense is in the short term interests of their shareholders. Of course that ignore the possibility that ethical policies may increase customer loyalty, and better serve their shareholders' longer term interests - as well as being "The Right Thing".

        Great! Then the companies that do "The Right Thing" will survive and out-prosper the o
        • The Data Protection directive does not take away your right to flush your privacy down the crapper. It simply means that a company cannot go back on it's word, it can only use your data in the way it originally tells you. So if they are going to sell it to the highest bidder, they have to tell you that when you give it to them. If they say they will use it only internally, they must stick to that.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Jaidan ( 1077513 )
        Personally, I don't like my information shared. So I will go out of my way to find frequent sites that have a strong privacy policy. Privacy is a right, however it is not a right you can't sell. A company has every right to sell the information I give them about myself to their affiliates and even non affiliated companies if they so wish. They should be held accountable for having a privacy policy that indicated what they will and will not sell, and the policies they write should have legal backing, wit

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        In most of Europe, companies are bound by laws implementing the EU's Data Protection Directive, which makes it clear that your data is not just another asset of the company which collects it, and that companies can only process it for the purposes for which you gave them the data.

        The point is that the data "belongs" to the customer.

        In the US, companies howl with outrage at the prospect that they should treat their customers with similar fairness.

        The US Government is doing more than "howling" when it c
    • It depends on where you are. Here in Europe we have pretty damn clear privacy laws, and a habit of slapping corporations with massive fines for breaking the laws. Plus the usual legal concept that you can't let someone make a profit from breaking the laws, i.e., the punishment has to at the very least be bigger than the illicit gains.

      Plus, we don't depend on random users suing, but have government and EU agencies for enforcing the consumer rights. They _can_ afford good lawyers.

      So shareholders can't really
  • If I can order a TUTU in my underwear, I'm good.
  • According to TFA, the shoppers didn't look for higher ratings when purchasing a sex toy than when purchasing batteries, and they were willing to pay only a $0.60 premium for privacy. And that when the privacy rating is conspicuously flashed at them with some gizmo.

    Given the evidence presented in the article, I'd draw the conclusion that shoppers don't care about privacy.

    • My biggest concern is that they were forced to review the privacy policy first, which isn't realistic at all. Claiming real-world relevance requires the study be similar to real world circumstances.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by yali ( 209015 )

        Here's a link to the researchers' actual report [econinfosec.org]. (Never trust a press account of any study of anything. Or a slashdot summary, for that matter.)

        This was a controlled experiment, and I agree with your point about real-world relevance. It appears to me that the researchers are claiming that if privacy information was made more prominent and easily digestible (as it was in their experiment), people would pay more for privacy. I don't think they are claiming that privacy policies influence people in the curren

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mpe ( 36238 )
          It appears to me that the researchers are claiming that if privacy information was made more prominent and easily digestible (as it was in their experiment), people would pay more for privacy.

          Rather they might pay more for some text on a website saying or not saying certain things... You'd need to carry out more research to see what a company's actual policy on privacy was.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by RJ11 ( 17321 )
        Actually, if you bothered to read the paper, you'd find that that's not the case. Privacy information was provided in the margins. No one was actually forced to read any privacy policies before purchasing.

        But thanks for playing!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
      they were willing to pay only a $0.60 premium for privacy

      Keep in mind that this number is related to the total cost. If this scales linearly, it would indicate a "privacy premium" of 4% (.60 / 15.00). The cynical side of me envisions some PHB calculating the maximum they can get from selling customer data, and whether this exceeds 4%. But far be it for me to question capitalism on Slashdot...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by mpe ( 36238 )
        The cynical side of me envisions some PHB calculating the maximum they can get from selling customer data, and whether this exceeds 4%.

        If you were really cynical you'd consider that they could both charge and extra 4% and sell the data...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RJ11 ( 17321 )
      Maybe you should actually, you know, read the paper rather than drawing conclusions from what some monkey posted on a website/blog/what-have-you after reading another website/blog/what-have-you. The $0.60 premium was not an exact value. The conclusive point was that people were willing to pay more for privacy; we were unable to infer exactly how much they would pay--that's another experiment entirely. Thus, people do care about privacy and are willing to pay more for it.

      The privacy rating was not conspic
  • The reality is that someone asked the wrong question.

    Pay for privacy? News flash - we're shoppers, customers, not your servants.

    And, if you're from the EU, you have privacy rights.

    Same goes for Canada.
  • Privacy is a fundamental demand of human culture since the evolution of Homo Sapiens, as a way of providing security. Why should it be any different now? People naturally wish to keep their activities and thoughts (which are shown through actions) hidden from others, unless there is a reason for the otherwise. Also, in this age, with internet crime up and political and criminal tracking over the internet, this fundamental demand is displayed even more, to protect individual security. The only thing I wonde
  • Idiot taxes are fees we pay to avoid the usual way vendors or governments do things, which is not only mediocre but criminally oblivious. You pay idiot taxes through insurance, higher prices, and of course the need to move when your neighborhood gets filled with violent idiots.

    Let's examine a typical online purchase...

    Purchase price: $24.32

    Fee for non-insane privacy policy: $0.60
    Fee for secured, audited servers: $0.81
    Fee for someone to do anything when something goes wrong: $0.72
    Fee to hire non-stupid peopl

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dgatwood ( 11270 )

      You forgot:

      Shipping: $6.75

      I buy locally if the local store carries something and it's only a couple of dollars difference. Usually when I buy online, it is either because local stores don't have it or because it would save 30% or more of the purchase price. If you aren't saving me a significant chunk of change off of the local price, your online store isn't worth my time. If your site is buggy and rejects payments and/or has significant navigation problems, your store isn't worth my time. If your po

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by athloi ( 1075845 )
        You're right! Thanks for the help. I mostly agree on local products, although they are not always available, which is why I almost exclusively buy books and music online (since I don't watch video, movies/TV are not applicable). I have in the past seen the type of vendors you describe online, and they terrify me. Reckless PHP code, confused implementation, hosting on some white box in an outhouse next to a T1 line somewhere... I'll pass on those, no matter how good the "deals" are.

  • Where do you get *real* privacy ratings? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by schwaang ( 667808 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:43PM (#19418283)
    I usually read an online shop's privacy policy before buying (along with their other policies). And it's usually legalistic gunk, with a truste logo slapped on, which is worthless given that most policies say "we can change this anytime without prior notification".

    So how do you rate what they _do_ instead of what they _say_?

    • So how do you rate what they _do_ instead of what they _say_?

      All that can really be done is to pass laws that make inappropriate data sharing unprofitable. This is the only way to make good, privacy respecting service competitive and fix those places where market forces or bad laws have eliminated choice.

      • Google just paid 3 *billion* dollars for doubleclick.

        And ChoicePoint, which supposedly paid ~$5 million after their little data Valdez incident, seems to be chugging along quite nicely thank you.

        Yeah, toothful privacy laws in this country would be great. But for now, I want useful independent information about bad actors so I can avoid them when possible.

        I always check resellerratings.com to see what other people think about an online vendor before using them. It would be nice to have independent informat

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by RJ11 ( 17321 )
          Actually, the ChoicePoint (and many other similar incidents) incident occurred because the U.S. does not have any comprehensive data privacy laws. ChoicePoint never even violated its own privacy policy (much less any laws) when it gave that data away.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RJ11 ( 17321 )
      You don't. That's why we have government. If a company says something in their privacy policy, and their practices don't reflect that, there's a name for that--fraud. In the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission is charged with prosecuting companies for unfair practices (fraud falls under that). If it becomes apparent that a company has violated its privacy policy, the FTC will and does go after them.
      • Oh, so everything's OK then?? Phew. And here I was worried that:

        1. corporate privacy policies are basically meaningless because they don't actually protect *anything* under all that legalese

        2. they often retain the right to change at any time

        3. breeches are often hard to detect until long after the fact

        4. there is no significant enforcement by FTC or anyone else

        5. and worst of all there is no umbrella privacy law in the US.

        The way things typically go, the Feds will end up passing something weaker than wha

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by asninn ( 1071320 )
      You can't. So unless that web store is a small enterprise where you personally know the owner, your best bet for remaining private is to go to a brick-and-mortar store to buy your stuff and pay with cash instead of using your credit card to purchase things on amazon and have them shipped to your address.

      In other words... you can't really trust most stores, but you don't have to worry about that if you don't put yourself in a position where you're relying on their trustworthiness.
  • Fatal flaw: the study told the subjects how to act. They were confronted explicitly with the privacy "device" developed by the researcher. They knew what was being measured and allowed to behave freely. In such circumstances subjects consciously or otherwise will attempt to conform to the implied expectations of the researcher.

    MSNBC has an article on the same subject (http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/06/price_of_privac. html#posts). Their poll is flawed for the same reason (it ends up measuring what people say

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RJ11 ( 17321 )
      Maybe you should read the actual paper before making comments on it. Subjects were not told this was a privacy study. Nor was any mention of the tool made. Subjects were told this was a study about online purchasing behavior. The privacy information was presented to them without any explanation; they were left to figure out what the privacy icons meant on their own. Some of the subjects correctly figured it out and used that information to make their purchases, while a few did not understand/notice the
  • "Privacy policies" fall into one of two categories:

    1) A length legalese document more complicated than a home loan;
    2) One line "promising" never to sell or otherwise disclose personal info.

    The only thing a consumer can "like" is whether they care and/or trust the vendor, regardless of any so called "privacy policy" (obvious and displayed prominently, or obfuscated under a mountain of half broken links).
    • The privacy information used in this study was gleaned from website P3P policies (machine readable privacy policies). The users state their privacy preferences to the user agent so that the user agent can make an automatic determination of whether or not the privacy policy complies with user preferences. Currently a little over 10% of the whole Internet uses P3P, whereas over 20% of online shopping sites use P3P (http://lorrie.cranor.org/pubs/icec06.html).

  • And the conversation went (Score:4, Funny)

    by Evets ( 629327 ) * on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @07:53PM (#19418373) Homepage Journal
    Researcher: Would you be willing to help us out today by answering a few questions and buying something online? We're researching consumer buying decisions as they correlate to privacy policies of internet merchants.
    Woman in Mall: Sure, what do I have to buy?
    Researcher: Just batteries. Oh and a... um... vibrator.
    Woman in Mall: <turns around and walks away looking for security>
    Researcher: But you get to keep it!
    Woman in Mall: Well, I guess if it's for scientific research...

  • What this means (Score:4, Insightful)

    by obeythefist ( 719316 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @08:01PM (#19418417) Journal
    Is that now every shoddy internet business is going to have a big serious looking "we care about your privacy" notice stuck somewhere prominent (but not prominent enough to displace advertising).

    They won't change their actual privacy policies or anything, and they'll still leak credit card details etc. to the highest bidders.

    Think I'm being cynical? Maybe. But think about it, this is bound to happen.

  • Isn't privacy a right? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wikinerd ( 809585 ) on Wednesday June 06, 2007 @09:06PM (#19418995) Journal
    Customers pay for service. If they are willing to pay more for privacy, this means that privacy is equated with a service that can be bought. Since then is privacy something you buy? Isn't privacy a right? Should we pay to enjoy our rights? I am afraid that the blatant lack of privacy has made even the customers to abandon the idea that they have this right as an unrealistic romantic ideal and accept the harsh reality that in today's corporate jungle there are no rights and everything can be sold and bought.
    • You go to a party. You introduce yourself to a few people.

      Eventually, someone you DIDN'T introduce yourself to comes up and already knows your name.

      No, you don't have a right to privacy when you talk to someone else.
    • Really, what are you paying extra for?
      So that the store wont stick you on a Spam list?
      Wont use your Credit Card drain your bank account?
      What is the actual cost involved in limiting your supplied information to the transaction at hand?

      If the store even hints that my info is going to be used beyond what it is supplied for, I wouldn't touch the place with a 10 foot pole.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by adelord ( 816991 )
        "If the store even hints that my info is going to be used beyond what it is supplied for, I wouldn't touch the place with a 10 foot pole." And that is the only way to encourage good privacy policies: make it effect the bottom line. It makes me shudder to read some of the proposals floating around designed to enforce privacy rights. The answer to this problem, like so many others is not new laws and policies. The cure would be worse than the disease.

  • Shopping online, I pretty much never give out my real phone and e-mail--if you do, you're just asking for spam and telemarketing calls. Oddly enough, I almost get none! Just give your credit card info and correct address (nobody much bothers with junk snail-mail anymore), take down the confirmation number from the purchase, and you're set! If the package doesn't arrive when it's supposed to, YOU call THEM with the confirmation number and see what's up. I've always done this over the years and never had

    • What if the company is supposed to send you some data via email, and the message was handled as spam and rejected by your server?

      You'll miss the message, thinking the company is a bad one. On their end - they attempt to get in touch with you because they have received the failed delivery report; but they fail to contact you because all the data you provided were bogus.

      Sometimes the customer may figure out something like this has happened and contact the company. Other times the customer sends a nastygram to

      • What if the company is supposed to send you some data via email, and the message was handled as spam and rejected by your server?

        On the rare occassion you need to get info back (say you're buying software and need an activation code), use a disposable e-mail (and sign up for that using fake info!). When you get the information you need, eliminate the e-mail account. Your privacy and true e-mail address is secure.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Get it right here, folks! Our new and improved, government approved, battery powered, vibratin' cucumber! Only 19.95, plus shipping and handling. And NOW! For the first time ever! Our first 3,000 customers get a Premium Privacy Policy for the super low price of just $8.75!(plus tax)(Viod where prohibited by law) Yes, this policy protects you like no other. Spammers will have to pay us twice as much to get this mailing list! So your protection is doubled!

  • From TFA: Participants in the laboratory study...

    I've seen over and over again that when you place Internet users in an environment where they are being watched, and know they're being watched, their behavior changes. If you were participating in a study conducted by the Carnegie Mellon Usable Privacy and Security Lab, using their own "Privacy Finder" search engine, don't you think your behavior would be a bit skewed?

    I'm all for privacy, and for giving consumers a choice about whether they want to let

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by RJ11 ( 17321 )
      Read the fucking paper before commenting on the methodology. The name "Privacy Finder" was changed to "Shopping Finder." Participants were given no information about the nature of our research (our lab is in a nondescript room, in a building occupied by multiple departments), and were certainly not told this was a privacy study. Do you honestly believe that if all the results could be attributed to the Milgram effect this paper would have been accepted into any major peer-reviewed conferences?

      Here, educa

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Infonaut ( 96956 )

        Read the fucking paper before commenting on the methodology.

        I stand corrected. The article led me to believe that the study was flawed, and I did not read the paper. A better article would have made this more clear, but I was reading into it I suppose.

  • As long as the website actually HONORS its own pledge. I recently purchased something from a website that claims " your personal information is never shared except with our marketing partners. Your credit card is used strictly for your purchase and will NOT be shared with anyone."

    Long story short I got a call 3 mos after buying something from them, from some jerk trying to send us $40 in free gas vouchers if we sign up for a service that is $1 for the first month, $20/mo after that. Took forever to convince
  • This sounds strangely like what Universal Studios and Disneyland do:

    Make money from the long waits in lines by charging people to cut to the head of the line.

    In effect, you are making money by providing poorer customer service.

    Which would you choose? Spend money keeping customers happy (and making money from repeat business as a result of good customer service), or make money from crappy service (and saving money from keeping them happy)

  • The idea here is that they're looking for sites that have a privacy policy expressed in XML, something that's been working since 2002 but never really caught on.

    Even the few sites that use that have problems. Check out Bankrate.com [bankrate.com]. According to PrivacyFinder, their policy, from the XML, can be summarized as "BankRate.com may share your information with: Companies that help this site fulfill your requests (for example, shipping a product to you), but these companies must not use your information for an

  • So they give people a search engine that highlights results that their privacy policy parser likes and claim that because people tended to click on them they were confirming their interest in privacy while shopping online? You think if google started randomly putting stars next to some of their results that to wouldn't influence click throughs?

    Then they say that people were motivated to really shop around to save a buck or two? A couple bucks is no real economic incentive for an adult to do anything beyond
  • A better measure of how you value you privacy is whether you use a store card/loyalty card. Most people are willing to sell their privacy for a small discount, but it seems up to 15% value it enough to reject these cards. Reference is from 2005 but I doubt the figures have changed much.

    According to a 2004 poll conducted by Boston University's College of Communication, 86 percent of American shoppers use some form of store card or discount card, "and the majority of them say the benefits of the card are wort

  • I was slightly confused by the fact that people were more likely to insist on privacy for the batteries (50%) than for the sex toys (33%).

    Then I realized that if your privacy 'gets broken' for batteries, you are likely to get catalogues about batteries in the snailmail.

    But if you privacy is 'broken' for the sex toys, you get catalouges about sex toys.

    Cleary, people WANT to get sex toy catalogues in the mail.

Slashdot Top Deals

On the eighth day, God created FORTRAN.

Close