Former DoubleClick Exec Named Privacy Czar 619
tsu doh nimh writes "A former executive for banner ad giant DoubleClick has been selected to be the first ever privacy czar for the Department of Homeland Security, says this Washingtonpost.com story." Just leaves you speechless ....
Puh-lease (Score:5, Funny)
Surely they could find someone with a better resume than that? Surely?
Gee (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Gee (Score:5, Funny)
RTFA (Score:5, Informative)
I'm really glad I read the article on this post, because after only reading the slashdot version I had a very different opinion on the matter than I do now!
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article, O'Connor only joined DoubleClick after they had become the privacy big bad wolf, and actually helped sort all that shit out. Notice you haven't heard that many DoubleClick horror stories recently...
Daniel
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the number of convicted criminals appointed to important offices lately, it's difficult to believe anything that the administration does is in the public's best interest. I hope your suspicions are incorrect in this case, but I fear they're probably not. Time will tell...
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, the more data a company like doubleclick is can grab from/about people (legally), the more profitable they are. Do you really think the most important criterium she had to meet was being a privacy evangelist???
She just had to play one on TV.
OTOH, that probably make her a perfect fit for her new job.
You're missing a *very* important point (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at this in perspective: DoubleClick is a huge organization that is having serious problems with lawsuits because it's trampling all over people's privacy. They bring in O'Connor Kelly, who does a good job settling *most* of the lawsuits (note: settling != defeating) and starts a new division to help keep DoubleClick safe from future lawsuits. DoubleClick continues to do as much data-mining and collection as it possibly can (because that's STILL the core of its business) but now it avoids most of the unpleasant and costly public lawsuits.
Now substitute "the US Govt" for "DoubleClick". Fits pretty well, doesn't it? It doesn't sound *too* bad... until you consider that they're still planning on doing as much privacy invasion as they can possibly get away with... she'll just help them walk that wavy line.
Think about the difference if the new privacy advisor were, say, one of the "12 state attorneys general" who were prosecuting DoubleClick, or someone involved in the "several class-action lawsuits" from the other side. Or ANYONE who had privacy advocacy experience from the victims' side.
Re:Puh-lease (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Puh-lease (Score:4, Funny)
Interviewer: Mr. Chong, what can you bring to this position?
Tomy Chong: Like.....Man....I know alot about....Hey, who's hungry?
Re:Puh-lease (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Puh-lease (Score:3, Funny)
yup, and not clicking them will be considered an act of terrorism.
Who's the real threat to our way (Score:4, Interesting)
Asking the burglar to guard the house (Score:4, Insightful)
first ever Terror Czar. Bin Laden was not immediately available
for comment.
From the article it sounds like this post will be more of a
public relations position than anything. Rather than appointing
someone who worked for a company notorious for trampling
people's privacy rights, IMO they should have appointed someone
who has a record of protecting an upholding our right to
privacy. Had they appointed someone with that type of track
record maybe the cabinet could have had an honest dialogue about
privacy rights in general, rather than simply a discussion about
how to phrase the wording of a news release so it doesn't freak
out the privacy rights groups.
Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a little harsh. After all, DoubleClick hired her to address the complaints that were coming from users. Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act. She isn't the worst possible choice.
Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house (Score:5, Insightful)
Her job was to help DoubleClick clean up their act.
No, her job was to help DoubleClick look like they were cleaning up their act.
In other words, she's the perfect choice for an administration that wants to look like they're respecting people's privacy.
Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd trust Kevin Mitnick with my network before I'd trust anyone from Doubleclick with my privacy.
The difference between Mitnick and Doubleclick? Only one of 'em is a lying shitweasel whose sole reason for existence is to the invasion of your privacy through clever social engineering.
Re:Asking the burglar to guard the house (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you aware that nothing they are doing is against any laws? And IMO it should stay that way. There is no constitutional right to surf the net anonymously.
Bizzaro world. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bizzaro world. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Bizzaro world. (Score:4, Funny)
Is it just me, or does anyone else want to bonk this guy with the Calvinball?
Re:Bizzaro world. (Score:5, Funny)
Start singing.
Re:Bizzaro world. (Score:3, Funny)
The pop-under that came up with the washpost page was strange in that it was a doubleclick ad page that errored on 404:
http://ad.doubleclick.net/www.washingtonpost.co
Error 404 Not Found
What are the chances?
I'm sure there's a IN SOVIET RUSSIA joke there somewhere, but I'm too tired to give it much effort this afternoon...
Irony (Score:5, Funny)
No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:5, Informative)
O'Connor Kelly came in after DoubleClick was shown to be, well, evil when it came to privacy, to clean things up. Many changes have occured at DoubleClick to fix some of the problems. Given the amount of data DoubleClick had and what they did with it, O'Connor Kelly should have an excellent idea of what abuses you can do when you have that sort of information.
Hopefully she can step in and help prevent that sort of thing from happening at this level too.
Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:4, Funny)
Depends on the point of view... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Depends on the point of view... (Score:5, Insightful)
That is why there was the attempt to put all the checks and balances in place.
Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:5, Insightful)
All industries use private information for their own profit. Who would you suggest they use?
Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:5, Interesting)
>
> Someone anti-industry, like Ralph Nader
Or someone pro-industry like Bruce Schneier, Phil Zimmerman, Eben Moglen, or Lawrence Lessig. (My dream picks: Schneier first, Lessig second.)
I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not. Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)
Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't care if my Privacy Czar is pro-industry or not. I care if they're pro-privacy or not.
Absolutely, but those people you mentioned are pro-privacy first and pro-industry second. Industry and privacy do collide, and it's important that a privacy czar have the proper priorities in mind.
Unless "Privacy Czar" one of those backwards honorifics like "Drug Czar", in which case, yeah, someone from Doubleclick is perfect. :-)
Or like the Ministry of Peace or Ministry of Truth? Is it merely a coincidence
She's an interesting choice at the least... (Score:3, Informative)
Call me cynical and sterotyping, but I think this is better than having yet another old, corrupt white guy in someones pocket.
Re:No, she sounds like a great choice. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:what's a popup ad (Score:3, Funny)
- what you see when you're working from a temporary box (not your regular system) that's going to be upgraded in the next few hours
... :-)
- an insidious method to improve hand-eye coordination and get all those net-potatoes to burn off extra calories despite themselves
- a way to convince people to avoid your product like the plague
- browser-based spam
In this case, it's reason #1Its a little late (Score:2, Funny)
Oh.
Elvis was a NARC. (Score:3, Funny)
Wrong department. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong department. (Score:3, Interesting)
Who is better at helping you make your house burgular proof, a novice, or an ex con?
This guy may be somewhat of an ex con, but he has to work in the public view, so I say give him a chance. He is going to know more tricks about privacy violations that the rest of us put together. Its better to have him working FOR us, than ON us.
In other news.. (Score:3, Funny)
Ron Jeremy [ronjeremy.com] has just been named as successor to the pope. Unbelievable.
Not so crazy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Big Bad Wolf (Score:2)
Hehehe (Score:5, Funny)
Way to read the article (Score:5, Insightful)
"One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups," Schwartz said. "There is still some question as to what level of access will she have, and whether she will be able to speak her mind internally and publicly on privacy issues or will she simply be giving the agency line on everything."
She sure doesn't seem like the demon you're making her out to be. Can't wait to read all the responses of the other people who didn't read the article.
Wow. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wow. (Score:3, Funny)
Fenix: "Um... Four?"
TR: "WRONG!" (throws lever, huge electrical shocks happen).
Fenix: "Give me a break, man, I didn't read the fucking book!"
TR: "What is two plus two?"
Fenix: "five?"
TR: "NICE TRY!" (throws lever, fenix gets the volts)
Fenix: "What the HELL, man, what is your PROBLEM???"
TR: "My problem? Perhaps you can help me. What is this?" (hol
Hmm, You want my private info you pay me for it (Score:5, Interesting)
-- Tim
Copyrighting one's self (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting. I wonder if there's a way that an individual could copyright himself. It may sound crazy, but consider that there are laws in existence whose text is copyrighted (yes it's true!). Suppose I changed my name to (whatever) "Yarkle Barkle", and then asserted copyright over myself as an original work of authorship, including medical records which are to be regarded as derivative works. Keep in mind that I'm not trying to make sense here so much as I'm trying to imagine how our increasingly twisted IP and privacy laws might be twisted in favor of the individual for once.
no dice (Score:3, Funny)
You are a number and you can't copyright a government issued number.
Re:Copyrighting one's self (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with "copyrighting yourself" is that copyright only grants protection on expressions, not facts or ideas. You can take this message and re-express it in a new form, and you'll have as much protection on your message as I do on mine. (If you follow too closely you end up with a derivitave product which would have different rules; think of a completely different re-expression of these ideas where perhaps you intend to use them as a springboard for explaining why you disagree, where you would phrase it completely differently, in a different order, with a different emphasis, etc.)
So, under current copyright conceptions, you can't own "your address". That you live at 123 Anystreet, Anytown, AS is simply a fact and copyright can not protect that. Similarly, I would expect that you are a fact, and could not be directly protected.
I'm still grappling with a solution and without the context of the rest of the essay I can't adequately my current thinking on the issue in a Slashdot post. (If I could, I wouldn't need a 100+ page essay, now would I?) But I do feel safe in saying that if you want to protect your private information in a manner strongly analogous to how copyright protects expressions, you will need some kind of new legal machinery. Current copyright mechanisms are not sufficient to that task.
(Be sure to read that carefully to understand what I am saying; I'm not directly commenting on the desirability of such protections either way, merely making an observation on the current outlines of the law.)
Actually, IMHO you're going down the wrong path with the idea of "copyrighting yourself"; you want control over the communication of your information, not control over yourself. (There's a conceptual difference.) I can't directly back that up but if you start trying to coherently rationalize these sorts of things I really think you have to focus on communication. Think of this less as a claim and more as a brain-poker.
Re:Hmm, You want my private info you pay me for it (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, it sounds a bit harsh, but isn't that a popular word nowadays? We are stealing music, stealing revenue by blocking popups... hey, some corporate idiot even suggested we are stealing whenever we use the remote to skip commercial time on TV!
So now anyone wanting my info can pay the modest fee of $20 for name, age and interests, and an additional $50 for my e-mail address.
Please support the individual. Say no to information theft!
Kevin Mitnick (Score:5, Interesting)
consultant - ha ha. Oh wait that's not a joke.
Re:Kevin Mitnick (Score:4, Insightful)
I assume you mean a computer or electronics security post? I would most certainly consider him an excellent candidate for the job. He simultaneously understands how bad security is, the potentially disastrous consequences that has, and more than most anyone else, the need to keep tech-law legislation and enforcement grounded on _this_ side of reality.
Well, slashdot should know (Score:2)
Is this really that ludicrous? (Score:5, Insightful)
How would this be different from hiring Kevin Mitnick to handle security issues?
The we like Kevin Mitnick more than we like ad agencies is not sufficient grounds for an objection. What I want to know is, why shouldn't we hire knowledgable people away from doing what we don't want, and into doing what we do want?
Yes, totally ludicrous (Score:4, Insightful)
Very different. Hacking and security is all about an *expertise*, which ultimately defines the quality of the work at the end of the day. In the privacy domain though the foundation is different - it's all about a *position*, the position of unconditional respect for individual privacy.
I seriously doubt one can suddenly develop such a respect if she was knowingly affiliated with doubleclick in the past. Too bad.
Re:Is this really that ludicrous? (Score:5, Funny)
Hi everybody, it's time to play, spot the idiot. The idiot has several characteristics, the most notable one is the inability to form a sentence without being absolutely wrong. For example, "...the things his company did..." is exceptionally wrong, because this DoubleClick exec happens to be a woman.
Proof that they don't know what they are talking about, nor that they know who this person is.
The second sign of an idiot is the ability to peer inside of others heads and illustrate what it is that they are thinking. For example, "This DoubleClick exec doesn't think
There are many other signs to point to an idiot, these are just the most prominent. Stay tuned for next weeks, "When Idiots Post"
You were supposed to wait a week. (Score:3, Funny)
Excellent! After smashing someone for daring to guese the intentions of others, you state them yourself. Did you ever consider alternate ideas?
How do you know that Doubleclick cares about privacy? The indications are that they did not, you know 12 state investigations, a federal investigation and a private class action suit. They settled t
Re:Is this really that ludicrous? (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA. From it, you'd read:
"The privacy rights community generally views O'Connor Kelly as a consensus builder, but it is too soon to say how much influence she will have in protecting Americans' privacy rights, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy and Technology. "
Though she is a self proclaimed geek at heart [witi.org], there isn't
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
That is all.
why so speechless? (Score:4, Informative)
From the article:
Why would this leave you any more speechless than hiring Kevin Mitnick to do security for a large corporation?
Get some balance in your outlook.
John.
I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! (Score:5, Insightful)
If the regulations had been made with consumers in mind at all, the default would have been to not share data and to only allow sharing when people opt-in. This would make private data a liability rather than an asset.
Re:I dont WANT a consensus builder in that job! (Score:4, Insightful)
I refuse to accept a consensus with evil.
How about we come to a 'consensus' with spammers? 'Well we'll only send you ads we think you want.'
How about with abortion clinic bombers? 'Well we'll be more careful about which buildings we bomb.'
How about with technophobes? 'Well... you can research this but you can't do any actual experiments or release actual products.'
Let's not just have a knee-jerk reaction that 'consensus is good.' It isn't always. Consensus is good when it accomodates people who have reasonable goals and expectations. The Gestapo doesn't fall under this category.
Re:why so speechless? (Score:3, Insightful)
"One of the things we liked (about her job) at DoubleClick was that she worked hard to build relationships with the privacy community and to vet their new policies with these groups,"
The point of her job was to sell new (slightly less) invasive policy to privacy advocates. She did nothing to improve privacy within the company. She did damage control for predetermined policy decided upon by other people. Policy was forced upon the company by the cour
Well, (Score:2, Funny)
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Okay, so I'm going out on a limb here... (Score:2)
Alright, let it be known in advance that I think is is a bad idea, however, just to play angel's advocate for a moment...
Who better to protect our privacy than those who know how to completely decimate it?
blink, blink
Okay, so you don't buy it, neither do I. :)
Why's this bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
"She joined DoubleClick in February 2000 after the Federal Trade Commission launched an investigation into complaints that the company was improperly storing and sharing private user data. DoubleClick also was embroiled in similar investigations by 12 state attorneys general and several class-action lawsuits.
DoubleClick settled most of those lawsuits, and created a division specializing in privacy compliance, which O'Connor Kelly ran. "
Sounds to me like some changes were make by O'Connor Kelly and privacy was improved. I'd say it takes a pretty strong person to go into a company as deep in it as Double Click and improve it.
Doh! (Score:2, Funny)
Somehow, I'm really not comforted by this choice for "Privacy Czar".
Next thing you know, Jeff Bezos will be running the Patent Office and Bill Gates will be in charge of the DoJ case against Microsoft.
Re:Doh! (Score:4, Informative)
No, this is the gal who joined DoubleClick after they were caught by the FTC and worked to get it into compliance, vetting new policy with privacy groups. Privacy groups actually like this choice.
Truth in Advertising (Score:2)
In other words, nobody can say we weren't warned. We have been informed as to what to expect. They are being honest for a change.
Did the editors even read the article? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course they didn't.
But hey, it's the /. editor's professional duty to not pay attention to any positive side of the story.
The story later mentions the infamous Total Awareness Office, and notes that "Congress said it will suspend funding for the Defense Department project unless the administration can demonstrate that it will not violate constitutional privacy rights." Naturally, that runs counter to the /. rule that "every privacy-related story must be in alarmist mode" so the editors always reject my submissions regarding Congress' threat to put TIA on hold.
Anyone have more details? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks for answers!
Privacy Czar? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Privacy Czar? (Score:5, Funny)
I think they misquoted... (Score:2)
Do people still read articles around here? (Score:3, Insightful)
So.... (Score:2)
Come on now people. (Score:5, Insightful)
But God Forbid someone who knows the ins and outs of privacy abuses, a person who would know BEST how to protect against them, gets the chance to do so. They're evil and will always be evil!
Selective editorializing.... (Score:5, Informative)
"The former privacy officer of Internet advertising giant DoubleClick will be the Department of Homeland Security's first privacy czar, Bush administration officials said. "
Yes, she once worked for DoubleClick, but she only started AFTER the FTC sited them for privacy abuses. So she went in, cleaned them up, settled their lawsuits, and moved on. She now works for the Department of Commerce [doc.gov].
So, she ran the privacy clean-up for DoubleClick, and now she's picked to do the same thing, monitoring privacy for the government's latest fad, Homeland Security. Is this a problem? Or is it only a problem because she was picked by a conservative?
Re:Selective editorializing.... (Score:5, Insightful)
She ran cleanup, meaning she got DoubleClick out of the FTC doghouse. Her job was to save DoubleClick because they did things they shouldn't have, not to save the privacy rights of consumers.
I sincerely doubt her position is there to protect the privacy rights of US citizens, but rather just to tell the Homeland Security Department how far they can go according to the law. If someone is trying to push through new legislation that encroaches on privacy rights, don't expect this person (in this position, not this woman in particular) to lobby to stop or even challenge it.
To directly address the most common analogy I've seen in the comments: This is less like calling in Kevin Mitnick to help beef up security, and more like a hacker/cracker calling in Mitnick's lawyer to advise him on ways to stay out of trouble even though his goal is still to try to get away with hacking into systems.
Re:Selective editorializing.... (Score:3, Interesting)
People are apprehensive because she was picked by Bush. She now joins the ranks of:
Thanks, America... (Score:4, Funny)
Playing devil's advocate... (Score:5, Interesting)
My actual worry is that this will be nothing more than an "honorary" posting; something that Ashcroft can point to and say "See? We've got someone working on privacy issues," while carefully not pointing out that she's not allowed to actually do anything about privacy protection. Although, the mention that the "Total Information Awareness" program has been - at least temporarily - derailed has me breathing a little easier.
Of course, if it does come down to a worse-case scenario, I'm going to have to unblock DoubleClick's cookies, or I'll be in big trouble!
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
this is no weirder than the fact that.... (Score:5, Funny)
the best golfer is black
the tallest NBA player is chinese
the swiss hold the america's cup
france is accusing the u.s. of arrogance
germany doesn't want to go to war
and the three most powerful men in america are named "bush", "dick", and "colon".
She's perfect for the job... (Score:4, Insightful)
It could be worse... (Score:3, Funny)
Quick Question... (Score:4, Insightful)
It seems that hiring someone who is good at compromising the system that is protecting you to make that system better is one of the things that the "geek" community recommends. How does this differ? The company she ran was good at compromising peoples privacy so who would better know how to protect that privacy?
Any argument you use against her can equally be applied to someone who compromises the network security of a business and is then hired by them.
Kintanon
Almost as bad as... (Score:5, Funny)
Ok, that's it. I give up.
The old "revolving door" again... (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's how it goes -- an industry bigwig is selected for a regulatory post because of "expertise" in a certain area. After all, they have all this experience, and have risen to prominence, so they must be well-qualified, no? They work for the government for awhile. They make contacts. And if they "play ball" while in their government position, they get a great job offers from private industry when their term expires. Sometimes these offers are innocent and genuine, but sometimes they're outrageous, obvious, and blatant rewards for having done someone's bidding while in office. And there's every shade of gray in between.
As I mentioned, the most common industry for this is heavy construction. It's most common at the local level -- particularly with construction managers who work as city/county inspectors, and then construction managers, or consultants, again. This is actually illegal in many places, but there are many ways to get around the letter of the law -- shell companies, etc. Sometimes it's so bad that when an inspector gets fired for obvious, intentional lack of diligence, he shows up the very next day on the same jobsite, on the contractor's payroll, making three times what the position would normally pay -- thumbing his nose at his former bosses. Nice "reward," eh, without having to take an actual bribe!
Of course, construction is an extreme example, being a somwhat bare-knuckle industry anyway. But the same conflict of interest exists everywhere else. And no matter how subtle the conflict of interest may be, the effects of it are felt by us all, and our society suffers.
Other areas of our society which could be very easily ruined by such conflict of interest are adversarial by design. Our courts, for example -- lawyers don't flip-flop between representing one side then the other. Good journalists aren't supposed to get too chummy with the people they're reporting on. Economist Milton Friedman has often commented on staying out of industry, worrying that it might corrupt his science, or give the appearance of doing so. Likwise, regulators should maintain the same distance from the industries they're regulating.
Reminds me of a "Rockford Files" episode... (Score:3, Interesting)
This show appeared in the later 70's and it concerned a group of business men that wanted to create a "super database" of everyone in this computer system located next to an airport. Rockford busts the case and captures the "criminals" in the end, of course. The show ends with a quick blurb about the dangers of computers and privacy.
What I find absolutely astounding is something that was considered criminal a generation ago is now accepted as common practice. "Companies and governments keep databases, big deal", is the common attitude now, but in the 70's even the CONCEPT of maintaining a database of personal information was considered criminal, never mind how it was used.
Announcement (Score:5, Funny)
Presidential spokesman Ari Fleischer announced today that President Bush has, after consulting with VP Dick Cheney, other members of his cabinet and unidentified experts from the poultry industry that The Fox would be put in charge of The Henhouse.
"We think The Fox will lend invaluable experience to the management of The Henhouse," said Fleischer. "He has decades of experience with both eggs and with chickens, a breadth of experience that most other candidates just don't have."
Too Many Czars (Score:4, Funny)
A bit of topic but... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Orwell must be laughing his ass off.... (Score:3, Funny)
Now watch as the Bush apologists leap out of the closet to support his choice, citing her 'community building' with privacy groups and whatnot. Right...as if they couldn't find thousands of more qualified choices who actually work with real, honest-to-god privacy advocacy groups.... "
The
Re:In other news.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You see, Doubleclick wasn't "cleaned up" by this person. No, she was brought in to clean up the PR nightmare that was the doubleclick policy.
In doing this, policy was changed minimally, and privacy was improved minimally, all while a PR spin was put on it to make it look like doubleclick was looking out for their customers.
I'm sorry buddy, but when you bring in PR to clean up a company, you aren't cleaning them up, your doing damage control so
Re:reminds me of something... (Score:3)
This is an update from the ministry of truth. You may cease your labor for two minutes to enjoy this announcement. Ignite your Freedom Cigarettes now.
The war with Eurasia is near an end, with several more cities having fallen to the allied armies. The downtrodden people of Eurasia are welcoming us with open arms, and Big Brother assures us that the war will be over shortly. Support your government! Buy Freedom bonds today.
Several agents of the terrorist Goldstein were appre