North American Corporate Privacy Comparison

Scooter[AMMO] writes "The Toronto Star has published an article on a study comparing the way companies protect the privacy of their customers, which is surely a topic of interest to most /.'ers. Choice quote: 'The study, the first to compare the corporate privacy practices of comparable Canadian and U.S. firms, found that Canadian businesses see their privacy practices as an opportunity to improve relations with customers, while their U.S. counterparts viewed privacy measures more as a way of complying with legislation and avoiding civil lawsuits.'"

Because

[Anonymous Coward]

Most American companies are too thick to treat the consumer with respect as a route to profit, rather than squeeze them for all they have.

It's an attitude thing, OK maybe not geo-specific, but it's prevailant in a profit driven world.

Re:Because

[BigBir3d]

I think it is geo-specific. Fuck the customer in every way possible, and make sure they don't find out. That is the US corporate mantra nowadays.

If you need examples, go car or house shopping.

And the best part is the employees are finally seeing that it is not just the customer getting fucked, but everyone below the CEO in the company as well. Unfortunately, most are adapting the "that is just the way it is, so I have to cover my own ass" attitude, which of course takes away from their ability to do a good job.

Re:Because

[JWW]

I've just been thinking about this lately with respect to world events.

Everyone is claiming that the President should have know about the prisoner abuse in Iraq. Well, thats all fine and good, but what does that mean when its applied to you and your job? Does the president/CEO of your company need to know everything thats going on at your company? If you answered yes to that question, then the inverse of that is; do you have any decisionmaking ability whatsoever in your job?

I find it disturbing how many people in the media and people in general expect full and absolute accountability from top levels of companies and the government, yet fail to realize that this means there will end up being no responsibility or care for the customer at the bottom if those people have no power or influence. Of course in the corporate (and I'm sure government too) world, there is also a lot of higher ups blaming their powerless workers for problems created from the top as well.

The power and the responsibility need to be at the same level, or things get broken fast.

Re:Because

[E_elven]

Good question. On the other hand, try and beat up one of your customers when you go to work today. See if anyone takes notice.

Re:Because

[arkanes]

It's not so much knowing every little detail of what happens - thats obviously impossible. However, good leaders should be (at least) aware of general policy decisions. They should also be accountable, whether or not they had knowledge - they're in charge, and it's thier responsibility to make sure that the people they're in charge of are following policy. If someone is breaking the rules, then they'r responsible (directly or indirectly) for finding that out and for correcting the situation.

Accountability, after all, is why (supposedly) we pay CEOs all that money. You're the ultimate go-to guy at a corporation and all responsibility and accountability ultimately rests with you. It's the same with the commander-in-chief - it's not just about being able to tell the Army to go kill people, there is responsibility involved as well. After all, you're the voice of the military to the public, and you're expected to have satisfying answers when stuff like this ends up in the public eye. Trying to pass the buck when you're the guy in charge is a sign of weakness and poor leadership, imo.

Re:Because

[JWW]

I agree that accountability is important, but what you see in some of these cases is a feedback loop working against it. For example, customer support problems could be a result of bad procedures and processes. If the people working on the "front lines" in customer support could change things to improve service, service may well improve.

But, in most cases, the management likes to measure things that are supposed to make customer service better and then make their decisions. But they can't handle all tha

Re:Because

[NateTech]

Call centers are the knowledge worker equivalent of sweatshops. The only advice anyone should give about call centers is "get out while you're still young".

Re:Because

[RobinH]

Does the president/CEO of your company need to know everything thats going on at your company? If you answered yes to that question, then the inverse of that is; do you have any decisionmaking ability whatsoever in your job?

Speaking as a project manager, the answers to those questions are YES/YES. As a manager, I have the power to delegate my decision making authority to those who report to me, and those people become responsible for their actions only to me. I'm still responsible to the person who gave

Re:Because

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

You assume that the individuals who actually carried out the dirty work acted alone. I've yet to see anyone assail a CEO or government leader because they lacked the ability to be omnipresent or see into the future. What I have seen is criticism that the policies that those leaders or CEO's put in place and the culture they created, led to individuals acting criminally as part of their duties in an organization.

In this sense, the CEO/President is directly to blame. If it's one customer service rep/private

My story..

[MisanthropicProgram]

I wsa in a meeting with some marketing people about designing our ecommerce site. To make a long story short, the marketing guy says "We need to collect personal information from our customers."
Me: "Why? We're not doing any marketing studies."
Marketing guy: "Someday, we may need it."
A lot of this has do with the magical thinking that collecting as much information on your customers leads to better business decisions. Most of the time, I see these folks collecting so much data that they don't have a clue what to do with it.

Re:My story..

[skifreak87]

I know for a fact that amazon.com has so much data that they don't even know what to do w/ it. they track so much info, that it's almost useless because they (as of a couple months ago) have no way to process it and gain anything valuable from it.

It's very typical in the do-not-fail nature of many US corps (IMHO), just make sure you don't fuck up, cover your ass so anything that goes wrong can be blamed on someone/something else. This way, if 3 yrs from now someone realizes how marketing data could be us

Re:My story..

[Destoo]

Somehow, I can find a similarity with most P2P.
Hours and hours of media, apps and games we'll never see or use.
"Someday, I may need a piece of software to alter the plans of my future house". HA!

When I had two toys, I played them all the times.
Now I have 500, and I don't play with any of them.

(dang.. another nostalgic post. Note to self: change that signature asap)

Re:Because

[Paulrothrock]

Unfortunately, that's the way it's got to be. Because corporations won't do the right thing, they have to be regulated so that it's unprofitable to do the wrong thing. Unfortunately, people are so against regulation that they never get changed, so the people who run the corporations and get caught doing the wrong thing simply treat fines as costs of doing business. And anyone who thinks they should be regulated so that they act in the best interests of the public *and* their shareholders is an unpatriotic c

Re:Because

[homer_ca]

"Because corporations won't do the right thing, they have to be regulated so that it's unprofitable to do the wrong thing."

There's another reason behind it. Customers don't punish companies in the marketplace for violating their privacy. Some theories I have are:

- Customers don't make the connection between companies handing over their private info and the results like junk mail and telemarketing.
- Some privacy violations have abstract and not concrete results like your data going into some giant government database, e.g. TIA, CAPPS II. So either customers don't know about it, don't care because it doesn't affect their everyday lives, or don't make the connection back to the company that handed over their data.
- Customer have no choice. We assume everybody will sell your data to telemarketers given the chance.

Re:Because

[CrimsonAvenger]

- Customers don't make the connection between companies handing over their private info and the results like junk mail and telemarketing.

Alternatively, many people don't think junk mail or telemarketing is that big a deal. Toss the junkmail unread, and hang up on the telemarketers. I use both of those techniques. My wife, on the other hand, being more vocal about her privacy, usually yells obscenities at the phone before she hangs up.

- Some privacy violations have abstract and not concrete results lik

Re:Because

[Paulrothrock]

Those are excellent points, but I'm not just talking about privacy issues. Walmart comes into a town and undersells every mom and pop establishment out. Mom and Pop then start shopping at Wal Mart, because they've lost their choice. It's not that they want to, it's that they have to, because Wal Mart's the only game in town.

Case-in-point: If I wanted to shop at a supermarket that didn't have a "rewards" card I would have to drive 15 miles from my home and pay almost twice as much for my groceries. Right now

Hmmm

[Plaeroma]

In the United States, "It's all about complying with the law, which may or may not have any bearing to people," said Ponemon. "In Canada, I got the sense that they thought it was just the right thing to do."

Isn't that exactly why we have laws in the first place, to set up penalties for not doing the 'right thing?'

Re:Hmmm

[pwackerly]

In truth, we have laws passed by a congressional body that is heavily influenced by corporate lobbyists and corporate spending, and a congressional body that is slow to change and update exisitng laws, especially in terms of handling technolgy. On this issue, I think consumers on a whole have far more power than Congress to effect business practices, though our choice in patronizing companies or not.

Re:Hmmm

[Tackhead]

> > In the United States, "It's all about complying with the law, which may or may not have any bearing to people," said Ponemon. "In Canada, I got the sense that they thought it was just the right thing to do."
>
> Isn't that exactly why we have laws in the first place, to set up penalties for not doing the 'right thing?'

When there's no law, there are market incentives to Do The Right Thing. (If you fail to Do The Right Thing, your customers get pissed off and leave.)

The instant anything is codified into law - whether it's the Right Thing To Do or not - the penalty for failing to comply with the law means you get sued, go to jail, or both.

Oddly enough, as soon as this happens, complying with the law suddenly becomes more important than even thinking about what the Right Thing might be, and Doing The Right Thing falls completely off the radar. Funny, that.

Privacy: It's dead. You have none. Get over it.

Re:Hmmm

[Lee Horrocks]

Oddly enough, as soon as this happens, complying with the law suddenly becomes more important than even thinking about what the Right Thing might be, and Doing The Right Thing falls completely off the radar. Funny, that.

Privacy: It's dead. You have none. Get over it.

In America.

As it points out in the article, in Canada we have a privacy act that does define legally what the private can and cannot do regarding personal data.

And yet, contrary to your theory, the Canadian companies surveyed are the ones

Re:Hmmm

[Chess_the_cat]

But who cares why Company X follows privacy legislation as long as they do? Their motives don't even enter into it for the average consumer. Basically this Star article which isn't about compliance but about the motivation behind the compliance is a bunch of bullshit and non-news.

Re:Hmmm

[cicho]

It doesn't matter why they do or do not comply. It's the right-wing mantra that a company has only one legitimate motivation, that is profit. Anything else doesn't matter. A profitable company can shut down its operation, lay of a few thousand people and move overseas so that it becomes even more profitable - and that is OK, because the company acts to increase its profit. If we then agree and accept as a fact of life that companies are motivated solely by profit, we cannot then expect them to consider any

Re:Hmmm

[garcia]

Privacy: It's dead. You have none. Get over it.

and unfortunately that is exactly the reason that privacy is dead. For some reason people have fallen into the trap that "oh well they say we have none so we don't."

I say tell the companies to fuck off and don't give out any information without requesting, in writing, what they plan on doing with it. Don't give any real information to any company that doesn't need it and certainly don't believe what anyone else tells you about your own privacy.

Re:Hmmm

[gid13]

While I see your point about law stopping people from considering right and wrong, I take issue with the claim that there are market incentives to Do The Right Thing in the absence of law.

I think there are market incentives to get your market hooked and charge them repeatedly for no real reason. To form monopolies, and gouge customers for all the money you can.

Consider Microsoft. Not that I think the antitrust situation has been all that hard on them, but would they really be a pinnacle of morality if the

Re:Hmmm

[E_elven]

The thing is that these issues are not used to the fullest extent. If a company put out a full-blown ad campaign stating their commitment to be above and beyond normal privacy laws and detailed what they'd do, they would get a surge of new customers.

Re:Hmmm

[Cecil]

When there's no law, there are market incentives to Do The Right Thing. (If you fail to Do The Right Thing, your customers get pissed off and leave.)

This free-marketeer argument gets trotted out anytime there is a endemic failure within a capitalist market, but it's never quite that simple is it?

Even if it were that simple, the tone of your message says "Oh, whatever, just don't worry about it, stop whining", which is entirely counterproductive.

For the free market to operate properly, people need to care about companies doing bad things. They need to be passionate about it. Every person with a defeatist attitude like that is one more person the companies who do bad things don't have to worry about anymore, who they can abuse at will. When that group of apathetic people reaches critical mass (I'd argue it already did many, many years ago) look out.

Still, all of this assumes that free-market capitalism works as well in practice as it does in theory. That is also up for debate.

Laws are intended to keep the system in check. Neither are perfect, but we make do with what we have.

Re:Hmmm

[Martin Blank]

People do care, but they feel helpless about it. What can one person do?

Answer: A lot, if they know it can be done.

However, sometimes change does come from within. Google's mantra of "Do no harm" may well resonate with people once they start opening up a bit. When one can trust a company out of the gate, it becomes a powerful incentive to be a customer of that company than some other company that can't (or won't) show you what it does with your information. I'm hoping that Google will become a runaway success story so that other companies can follow suit.

Re:Hmmm

[Plaeroma]

When there's no law, there are market incentives to Do The Right Thing. (If you fail to Do The Right Thing, your customers get pissed off and leave.)

Ideally, yes. However, this assumes that the consumer cares or is even informed enough to make a judgement call about caring. A lot of times, this just isn't the case. Ideally again, laws help shore this up. But as you pointed out, law is far from being perfect. However, it DOES add another check point, and a very important one at that. I would trust

Re:Hmmm

[CuriHP]

If the consumer doesn't care, then to him it is not "The Wrong Thing." The fact that you or even a small group feel that any given issue is important does not mean that it matters to the populous at large. If 99+% of a company's customers don't care about them collecting data and the company has a use for it, then in a true free market it would be "The Right Thing" for them to collect this data. It only becomes "The Wrong Thing" in this case if a majority, or at least significant minority of their custom

Re:Hmmm

[cicho]

If the consumer doesn't care, then to him it is not "The Wrong Thing."

Not necessarily. Consumers may well care about the number of telemarketing calls they receive during dinnertime, but they may not readily link that to providing a bit of personal information once to a website that PROMISED to protect their privacy. Thanks to electronic databses and the American tradition of free-for-all when it comes to selling personal information, making such links has become practically impossible, unless you just w

Re:Hmmm

[amnesty]

Isn't that exactly why we have laws in the first place, to set up penalties for not doing the 'right thing?'

Not really. Laws are in place to have penalties for doing the wrong thing. That's not the same as 'not doing the right thing'.

Laws don't make you do the 'right thing'. You could simply just do nothing.

Re:Hmmm

[Dachannien]

"Laws don't make you do the 'right thing'. You could simply just do nothing."

Like not paying my taxes?

Re:Hmmm

[gid13]

So it's legally okay for me to not pay taxes? It's legally okay for me to not call an ambulance on my cellphone if I witness a horrible crash (hint: it's not, at least in Canada). It's legally okay for me to continue living in a house that the government has decided to build a highway through?

In case it's not obvious, the point I'm getting at is that there are certainly laws that punish you for not doing something, hopefully the "right thing".

Re:Hmmm

[wfberg]

Not really. Laws are in place to have penalties for doing the wrong thing. That's not the same as 'not doing the right thing'.

That's what tax breaks are for. If you want to stimulate something, make it a write-off. You don't even need to know exactly what it is that's causing the good things you're encouraging, just reward the outcome.

For example; lower taxes on your car if your car doesn't pollute. Or tax-breaks for the rich, because you want to encourage people to get rich.

Re:Hmmm

[nharmon]

Then consider the fact that Canada has more privacy laws. Now if Canadian businesses thought it was just the right thing to do, why would they need all of those laws?

Canada is in its infancy...

[kuwan]

Canada is just in its infancy concerning privacy laws. At one point I'm sure US companies thought it was just the right thing to do, but all it takes is one or two companies to sell out their customers' privacy and then the laws are needed. Then when there's more abuse, even more laws and stiffer penalties come in to the point that companies no longer care about the right thing to do, but they are concerned about protecting their own asses 'cuz they don't want to get sued or fined again.

Then come the opp

Re:Hmmm

[Daniel_Staal]

NO!

Laws are not meant to be a guide to ethics, at least not in most modern states. (Religious states are a different mater.) They are there to keep society running smoothly. To protect a person's rights to property and life, and the pursuit of both. (Or whatever the state has decided it wants to protect the pursuit of.)

You can be unethical and law-abiding, in fact should be both, if your actions do not impair anyone else's right to live their life. You can be a criminal and ethical if you do someth

Privacy and outsourcing

[GeckoFood]

The privacy issue of customers and employees alike takes an interesting spin when you factor in outsourcing. Suddenly, all of your personal data is in someone's database overseas. That's ok, until there's a political problem. When you have a government who doesn't give a rat's butt about privacy laws in other countries, and someone decides to sell your data, you're screwed.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Privacy and outsourcing

[pvt_medic]

this is a huige concern right now in the medical field where there is a trend to outsource your patient records. Transcriptionist in other countries work with your chart and most of your data is stored in a mixture of here and there (really hard to say where anything really is thanks to the internet). But the challenge is if there becomes an issue about privacy or good old HIPPA. Well the hospital subcontracted out this job, to a company who subsequently subcontracted it out, so who is responsible. Not only does american companies only have privacy practices they do everything in their power to make it so they can blame someone else if there is a problem.

Security Issue Too...

[MisanthropicProgram]

When your medical/financial records are sent to god knows where for whatever reason, your: Name, DOB, SSN, and address are sent along with it. Everything a crook/terrorist needs to steal your identity and cause havoc.
There was this study that most identity thefts are an inside job. Mostly from financial and medical firms. Identity Theft [msn.com]

Re:Privacy and outsourcing

[tuxette]

One thing problematic (at least to me) about outsourcing to countries that have no privacy laws, is that a lot of European personal data is transferred to these countries, due to the personal data having been transferred from Europe to the United States.

According to the EU Personal Data Directive [cdt.org] article 25, personal data cannot be transferred to "third countries" that don't provide an adequate level of protection of personal data (via legislation); the United States is one of these countries. Unfortunate

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:People just don't care.

[Visaris]

Mod parent up! I haven't done any hard research, but everyone I know have 2-3 tracking^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscount cards on them. My parents have 4. They don't even think about it. Am I the only one who refuses to shop at stores that won't give me a resonable price unless they can track my purchases?

Re:People just don't care.

[Cheeze]

what kind of privacy is lost by using a discount card? Do you really care if the grocery store knows who bought a loaf of bread at 3am? If you pay by credit card, they know all about you anyways.

Example:

[hummassa]

If you buy (or not) something during a strike (at Wal-Mart for instance), and the shop (or tracking card) sells this information with a prospective employer, it will know the strength of your position IRT unions etc.

Re:People just don't care.

[mahdi13]

what kind of privacy is lost by using a discount card?

The police could use it to verify that he bought that bottle of JD and went for a swerving drive down the interstate at 100mph...

The FBI can verify when/where he bought the needed supplies to start a home making bomb 'project'

His wife can find out that he bought a 12 pack of condoms at the time he was suppose to be at work...and she never saw these

These are things that should not be tracked, ever! We don't want someone going to jail over such 'evidence'!
MY privacy has been compromised! They know that I'm a drunken explosives expert adulterer!! The humanity!!

Re:People just don't care.

[Surt]

Well, in my area there aren't any alternatives. Every grocery chain requires you to have a tracking card to get reasonable prices. Nearly everything I buy is at a 50% or higher discount now. I can't afford not to use a discount card.

Personally, I just try to trade discount cards with like minded people on a regular basis.

Re:People just don't care.

[Short Circuit]

Personally, I just try to trade discount cards with like minded people on a regular basis.

So getting hanged on evidence based on someone else's behavior is better than getting hanged on evidence based on your own behavior? That's like trading firearms with someone so that their murder is traced to a weapon registered to you.

Re:People just don't care.

[crimethinker]

Here's a hint: you don't have to fill out accurate information on the form to get the discount card. Just ask Consuelo Rodriguez, 123 Any St., whose name is associated with my discount card. Of course, this particular store does not have the name come up when the card is scanned, so they don't question why a white male would have a hispanic female's name on the card. Also, the NYTimes (soul-sucking registration required) believes that I am an american indian born in 1900, living in zip code 10000.

In the e

Re:People just don't care.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Well, in my area there aren't any alternatives. Every grocery chain requires you to have a tracking card to get reasonable prices. Nearly everything I buy is at a 50% or higher discount now. I can't afford not to use a discount card.

I'm impressed. My discount card (the one that claims I'm an old Abanian lady) gives me maybe a 3% discount on a good day. I suggest that you get a new one, using the name of your next door neighbor, if they worry you. Or your boss. Or use "William Hickock"...

Re:People just don't care.

[twbecker]

I'd love to shop at a store that doesn't require discount cards, care to tell me where there is one? I'll admit it, I have cards for 2 grocery stores. And I use them, because I don't want to be ripped off any more than I already am. Like many, I am pretty much against the concept, but unfortunately money has to come first.

Re:People just don't care.

[Kenja]

I have two Safeway Club cards. One has the wrong user information on it, so they can't track squat. The other has my real data on it, but its only used when I buy condoms and sour cream.

Re:People just don't care.

[Txiasaeia]

Canadian retail outlets use reward cards all the time. At Safeway, the only way you can get a discount is with their stupid card (although, to be fair, you just have to say you forgot your card and give them a valid phone number attached to a card and you'll be fine). AirMiles, RBC Reward points (bank), HBC Rewards (The Bay, Zellers, etc.)... they're all over the place.

I like my privacy, but if Safeway wants to know that I eat 20 tortillas a week, then so be it - maybe those damn shells will be on sale

Re:People just don't care.

[Dexx]

A trick that works, especially at Safeway, and other grocery stores:

Get a load of groceries and head to the till. When it comes time to pay and they ask if you've got a store card say that you don't have one, but would like one. They'll pull one out from under the counter and remove it from the form and scan the card right away. Start filling out the form with fake data while the people behind you start getting ticked off. Offer to step away so other people can go through and bring the form back in a m

Re:People just don't care.

[Laxitive]

The thing is, the government here is actually pretty pro-active here when it comes to enforcing privacy rules (and a lot of other rules that are good for us, but might be ignored if simply left to the masses to enforce by "voting with their dollars"). So it doesn't matter if most people don't care - the government cares enough to ensure that it is done. And that way, I get my privacy even though most others may or may not care.

But that's COMMUNISM! We can't have that! The government meddling in private

Re:People just don't care.

[That's Unpossible!]

Look at how people react to invasions of privacy by the government ("It's for our protection!")

Who is 'they'? I know no one that would react to an honest-to-god "invasion of privacy by the government" in the manner you describe. So either you made up this reaction, or what you consider an invasion of privacy differs from most.

and by companies ("Hey, if I use this card who cares if they track my purchases, I saved $2!"). They just don't give a damn!

OK, I see it was the latter... you just have a differe

Re:People just don't care.

[BigGerman]

it takes time.
Imagine scenario when some outsourced personal data will surface on a website in some 3rd world country. It is only matter of time before it happens. Public outcry will be enormous.

Can't deny it..

[beldraen]

As a student and part of business school is learning about ethical/privacy concerns. I go to a private, Catholic university that's good about ethics and doesn't over do the religion, so they very good about posing ethical/moral decisions on students. Part of the studies is to recognize international/other nation's attitudes and expectations. On what I've seen, Europe is a far more private and "American" than the U.S. The U.S. business attitude is "ok, we have to comply, but how far can we push this?" Not Europe's, "hmm, is this good for our consumers?"

Sad, really.

Re:Can't deny it..

[Aneurysm9]

I'm not sure that European companies are any more driven by customer concern than American companies, but the laws with which they must comply have been writing with the consumer in mind much more than the hodgepodge of American privacy laws. The European concept is more akin to a property right that can be non-transferrably licensed whereas the US view is that the corporation has a property right in whatever information they obtain and can do with it what they will.

Mod parent up

[beldraen]

Very true. I was impressed European law that just because someone has something, it doesn't imply that it is immediately theirs to do with what they will. Personal information by default, if I remember correctly, is sharable only on an opt-in basis. That would be so nice here.

The difference

[Fearless Freep]

"Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance
Americans think 100 years is a long time"

Here we go again United States vs. Canada

[nharmon]

I would like to know something. Why are us in the United States trying so hard to distance ourselves from Canadians, and vise versa? We're all Americans. And now we need some study to contrast something as meaningfull as privacy habits of COMPANIES (that was sarcastic by the way).

"I think it shows that the U.S. view of privacy is more a security-centric view, while in Canada we have a more European view that says we need to protect against abuse from authorized users," said Peter Hope-Tindall, a privacy c

Re:Here we go again United States vs. Canada

[Txiasaeia]

Not to start a flame war (honestly), but I think you've got it a bit backwards. Canadians aren't trying to be more like Europe, we're trying to be less like the US. We get your local news stations here on cable and satellite, and it ain't pretty, so we do anything we can do to make it so that we don't have to sit through five or six gun-related news stories per night.

Why do Canadians do things to distance ourselves from the US? We just don't agree all the time. That's acceptable, right? We didn't want to go to war, you guys did, so we each did our own thing. In Canada, the emphasis is on the community, not the individual - the greater group decided that we didn't want to go to war, so we didn't as a group. In the US, everything is geared towards individuals, so the people that wanted to go to war (i.e. politicans, soldiers) did, whereas the ones who didn't (i.e. Michael Moore ;) ) protested. They're just different systems, that's all. This is a gross generalistion, of course, but it gives you a basic idea.

Disclaimer: I am not a troll. Promise!

Re:Here we go again United States vs. Canada

[oogoliegoogolie]

I noticed Americans have been distancing themselves from Canadians since Canada said "No" to participating in the ousting of Saddam. Kinda like the way they felt about France, but not to the same degree.

We're all Americans.
When Canadians say 'we're not Americans', it's not that we are saying that we're not "North Americans", but instead we're saying we're not United States AMERICANS. Not sure why, but Canadians have always made great effort to distance themselves from being American. Canadians take pr

Good Article

[unixbugs]

This is a classic example of where laws regarding corporations are only abided by because breaking them is illegal, not because they feel compelled to be honest like most hard working people.

Canada has laws against using aluminum to distribute consumable products like FOOD. Aluminum pans are not used in Canda. This is all due to research done years ago linking the build up of aluminum in the human brain to neurological problems like Alzheimers.

But then again, Canadians benefit from socialized medecine. It just doesnt make sense for their government to allow companies to distribute aluminum with food because they will only have to pay for the medical bills and medications of those adversly affected in the long run. Or is it because they are nice?

No laws like that here. Hell you buy enough different kinds of food that comes in aluminum containers to last you a lifetime if thats all you ate. You'd probably be a blithering idiot by the time you were 45, but who cares? Just get someone to stand in line for you at the medicare office, and take up a part time job at McDonalds to pay for the rest of the expenses.

Something is really really wrong with this picture. In a day and age where corporate rule and well being in "the greatest country in the world" is held is such high regard over the well being of the general populace, its a small wonder that nothing short of apathy sweeps the minds of those who stumble upon someone so informed and opinionated.

"I cant change this by myself and all I want to do is make a good life for my family and live another day.." is by and large the mantra of working heads of households. But this is under the guise that tomorrow there will be the right to do what you can for your families. Slowly but surely everything from what you eat and how you eat it to where you live and what you see on the internet is under less and less of your own control.

Welcome to America, take a number and sit the fuck down.

Bad Science

[cdrguru]

I know of no respected study that links Aluminum with Alzheimers or any other neurological problems. I know of lots of web pages filled with scary stories about how cooking with Aluminum pans made their aunt, uncle, father, brother or whatever have problems.

No science plus lots of anecdotal evidence leads people to very, very wrong conclusions. And, in places where the "Greens" have more political clout you get laws passed that codify bad science into rules that people think are grounded in something. In nearly all cases this is made-up nonsense from purely anecdotal hearsay.

Re:Bad Science

[Colazar]

You are absolutely right, there are no studies showing a link between eating food cooked with aluminum and Alzheimers, but this isn't something that was made up by loony people either. There was a time when the best available science suggested that there might be a link.

As they studied the brains of people who had Alzheimers, they discovered that they had a lot of placques (sp?) in their brains, and that there was a lot of aluminum in these placques. The discoverers theorized that these might have formed f

Extremely understandable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the US's past (present and future) trend towards rampant, unbridled, unhindered, wanton capitalism, it should be entirely obvious why this is the case. Legislation that serves the public interest scarcely serves the corporate interest. Now, this would not be a problem if it weren't for one deciding factor that turns a capitalist into a member of the capitalistas: the stock market.

The stock market has corrupted the entire concept of free market and free trade, not supported it. It's a legalization of sleaze. Where else can somebody take an ethically deplorable action, such as firing thousands to inflate quarterly profits, and be rewarded with unimaginable riches by the shareholders?

Capitalism is great, but this neo-fascist capitalist-inspired plutocracy has got to go.

Mod Parent up.

[Paulrothrock]

Capitalism is great, but this neo-fascist capitalist-inspired plutocracy has got to go.

This has to be modded up.

Re:Extremely understandable...

[Hiro Antagonist]

Don't blame the market; blame the idiot shareholders, who actively work against corporate boards looking long-term. American investors have a very short-term attitude towards profits, and react very negatively towards companies that are willing to sacrifice tomorrow's profits for even greater profits throughout all of next year.

Re:Extremely understandable...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Given the US's past (present and future) trend towards rampant, unbridled, unhindered, wanton capitalism,

YOu should read more history. "Capitalism" was far more "rampant, unbridled, unhindered, wanton" in the 19th century. Current trends are (and have been for several generations) rather in the other direction.

Moral of the story...

[mahdi13]

So Canadian Companies have privacy options to keep the customer happy and the United Stated has it to keep from being sued!

Democracy in action! Only in America you can get sued for knowing someone's name and address!

Off-topic (slightly), Karma whoring (obviously)

[The-Bus]

This is from a packet I got on the credit bureaus. You know all those "You're Pre-Approved for a $50 Discover Card!" mailers you get? It apparently can be removed...

To request that your name be removed from pre-approved credit solicitations developed through credit reporting agencies, you can call 1-888-567-8688 or write the agencies below. Include your name, address, and Social Security number.

Experian
Consumer Opt Out
901 West Bond
Lincoln, NE 68521

Equifax Inc.
Options
P.O. Box 740123
Atlanta, GA 30374-0123

Trans Union LLC
Name Removal Option
P.O. Box 97328
Jackson, MS 39288-7328

I just tried to call the number and it was busy. Certainly feel free to verify any information regarding this. (Google cache of State of NJ website listing this and other methods [64.233.167.104]). I only wish that I could end "CAR RT SORT" mail from getting to me. All I do is toss out dozens of circulars per week. A waste of paper and time.

Re:Off-topic (slightly), Karma whoring (obviously)

[Afty0r]

That's interesting. Here in the UK, it would be illegal for companies to send me mailings based on that information in the first place.
Saves them money on printing and postage, saves me money and time opting out.

Re:Off-topic (slightly), Karma whoring (obviously)

[nate1138]

Also slightly off-topic, but here it goes anyway.

The kind of junk mail that really pisses me off is the kind that tries to look legit. You know the kind, manilla envelope with official looking seals, and from someplace that tries to sound like the government, like "Department of Credit Referral Actions" or some dumb shit like that. Or the fake fedex/priority mail envelopes. I've even gotten a few that were almost dead ringers for certified mail envelopes. I'm not dumb enough to be fooled by it (bulk m

Re:Off-topic (slightly), Karma whoring (obviously)

[wfberg]

junkbusters [junkbusters.com] has an interesting mention of something called a prohibitory order.

If you fill out USPS form 1500 against any non-governmental organization, they MUST stop sending you mail. It was originally meant to stop pornographic junk mail, but since one man's porn is another man's art, it's now up to you to determine whether you find), let's say, mortgage offers arousing and/or patently offensive.

American vs. ???

[cdrguru]

I suspect this sort of comparison would be even more interesting if it was done with some other areas of the world. Europe vs. Japan, for instance.

I do not believe the average American consumer believes any company is going to "do the right thing" without some sort of legal force behind it. And even then, it will be a question of risk vs. benefit.

So the Canadian company that believes having some extensive privacy statement and following it closely will net them better customer relations is deluding themselves. Similarly, an American company that does not have as extensive a committment to privacy - and perhaps actually does not provide as much "real privacy" to customers is likely operating in an environment where spending more dollars on "improving privacy" is a waste of time and money. In either case, the majority is likely to assume whatever they say, they are lying. What ever they claim to be doing, they are doing whatever they need to do. Period.

Now, it would be nice if there was some organization that actually investigated privacy practices and reported on them. Unfortunately, what we have is membership-based organizations where you pay a fee and get to put a logo on your web page. Does this come with any follow through, education, training or publicity? No. You have a logo on your web page. This pretty much tells the consumer nothing but it does look nice.

Doing the right thing

[pubjames]

I'm afraid that my experience of American companies means that I don't trust them any more. Sorry, but that's the case. Three times now I've been involved in deals with American companies where the American company has betrayed one of their European partners, just to make a fast buck, including one case which financially ruined one of my clients.

You should do the right thing just because it is the right thing to do, not because it's the law or so you don't lose customers.

Re:Doing the right thing

[pubjames]

Three whole times. Out of all the American companies in existence. Wow, thats a meaningful statistic.

Three times American companies have done things that have been duplicitous and harmful to my business. Compared to zero times that I've had a European company stab me or business partners in the back. That's pretty meaningful to me.

Too Kind to U.S.

[linuxwrangler]

The article's conclusion seems too nice to US companies. Compare the article:

"It could be that (U.S. companies) feel what they're doing is more than adequate and just as protective of the customer."

with this passage from a MetLife insurance application (printed entirely in bold in the original, emphasis mine):

We may use what we know about you in order to offer you our other products and services. We may disclose this information (other than consumer reports and health information) to our affiliates so that they can offer their products and services, or ours, to you. By law, we don't have to let you prevent these disclosures. Our affiliates include life, car and home insurers, securities firms, broker-dealers, a bank, a legal plans company and financial advisors. In the future we may have affiliates in other businesses.

Is privacy violation worth it?

[91degrees]

I'm sure most people's main privacy concern is companies selling their information (primarily just name and number) to telesales firms. I have to wonder why they do this. Look at the numbers;

There are very few monthly services that cost less than $10 per month. Usually that's over a minimum 12 month term, so that means that for each customer,the company will make $120.

In addition to this, they can sell the customer information for about 1 cent per name. They might even be able to find 100 companies to sell it to. Is that dollar really worth it? Wouldn't a promise never to sell a customer's details be worth more to the customer?

Re:Is privacy violation worth it?

[tuxette]

A lot of companies promise to never sell or otherwise transfer your details to a third party, and then do so anyways. Remember the Toysmart case? [go.com] They're one of the few that got caught.

legal requirements indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

I work in a library. It took me 2-3 months of constant bugging to get our privacy practices posted on the web. The first reponse we got back from legal council was that, and I quote, "The policy is somewhat that we don't post notices about the law." (the USA PATRIOT Act being the law in question)

Oh well, next up is getting us to admit to the public that we have video cameras installed....

Re:legal requirements indeed

[InsaneGeek]

Reason why they tend to be touchy about stuff like that is: if some librarian assistant doesn't follow said rule and it's posted publicly then the entire library opens itself up for legal lawsuits if even the lowest person doesn't follow them. If it's an official written policy you get held to it in court, but if it's only an unwritten rule then if someone breaks it the library itself can't be held liable.

Canadians

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian I would like to help debunk the myth of Canadians as so much "nicer" than Americans.

We have a habitual need to publish smarmy, self-serving articles about our superiority to our chums down south. We pollute less (wrong), we're more environmentally aware (wrong), there's no racism (wrong), we don't have crime (wrong), we're clean (wrong - come to Toronto sometime and sample one of our many fine street corner garbage tornados, sewer reeks and impromptu construction debris dumps), our health care is great (wrong) , our brains are bigger, our dicks are smaller but they're magical so it doesn't matter, the sun shines out of our arseholes to warm the entire world, blah blah blah.

OK, with the context firmly in place, I've worked in two places since the recent privacy acts have some into force and I'm sorry, it's just a bogus bogus bogus self-serving, lie to state that Canadian companies are motivated more by a desire to have "better customer relationships" than by a desire to avoid litigation. Don't make a mistake, this is an opportunitiy for lawyers to scare companies into paying them consultant fees and that is exactly what is happening. Where I've worked (insurance industry) it's been jumping cats trying to avoid doing anything with personal info that could cause lawsuits. Shredders are working overtime. Policy and procedure documents are sprouting like mushrooms. All inititatives are led by lawyers and all the executives have to say is "don't get us sued". Not "we find this a tremendous opportunity to serve our beloved clients" but "We abuse our customers and they hate us. We can't give them a chance to sue us because they will. For god's sake, don't get us sued!!! Please!!!"

Just like in the US, the successful businesses in Canada are those which lie, cheat, and abuse their customers.

It's because people don't care

[vijayiyer]

The reason American companies don't care about customer privacy is because consumers don't care. And consumers don't care because they expect the government to protect them from everything. If people wake up, realize that they need to make decisions rather than legislating everything and criticizing "evil big business", maybe businesses would actually have an opportunity to improve the bottom line by improving privacy standards. As of right now, that's a fallacy in the minds of the average slashdotter.

The logic of capitalism.

[aussersterne]

Of course they care about privacy. They just care about buying power a great deal more.

1) Customers want low prices from the companies with whom they do business. They vote with their feet and dollars by going to the companies who have the lowest prices--subsidized by the sale of customers' private information.

2) Customers want high wages (and thus, by extrapolation, maximum profitability) from their own company. They won't put pressure management not to exploit customers' private information because it w

Re:It's because people don't care

[maximilln]

-----
because consumers don't care
-----
Consumers care about privacy but what can they do? This isn't a game of choosing a different local supermarket because all of the shippers and distributors are tied to the same company. This isn't a game of choosing a different banking institution because they're all tied to the same insurance companies and stock traders. This isn't a game of choosing a different credit card provider because they're all tied to the same three credit reporting agencies.

-----
And consu

Companies do things for one of two reasons . . .

[scottennis]

. . .either they believe it will generate a profit, now or in the future, or they are legally compelled to do it.

Any company that does not follow this maxim will be out of business soon, because they will lose capital or competetive advantage.

Tired stereotype

[cheezit]

In other news, the underdog Candian competitor is the audience favorite to win the race. The crowd is tired of seeing the perpetual American winner coast through the finish line and onlookers never miss an opportunity to find fault.

Jeez folks, this may or may not be true, but let's all recognize the storyline it is patterned off of. USA=big bad bullies who don't play fair, Canada=nice people who do the right thing. What, do Canadian companies not have a profit motive?

OK, what would a REAL privacy policy look like?

[Walter Wart]

The company I work for is making privacy a big part of its marketing appeal. "Take back your data." "Your information is yours." The Powers That Be want people to be sure that we won't misuse their information. What would a good model privacy policy be for a company that wants its customers to feel warm and fuzzy about their data privacy?

I already talked to EPIC [epic.org] and EFF [eff.org]. For fire-breathing privacy advocates they weren't terribly helpful. They said, more or less, "Nobody has ever asked us this. We're more i

No perceived risk == no action

[at_kernel_99]

Most companies aren't going to do anything about guarding privacy until they get bitten.

A former employer is in the data management business. The data consists of a global set of individuals & certain information about them, including, for some US individuals, their social security number, as well as address info. When I left we were not yet collecting credit card data, but the possibility of doing so in the future existed.

At a corporate level, and as far as clients know, data security / privacy is contractually guaranteed. But the reality is that servers & desktops with all their data are unsecured (physically). Sure, the production machines are all in a secure location, but the data also exists in testing databases, test plans (i.e. documentation), developer databases, developer hard drives, etc. There was absolutely no effort whatsoever to protect the privacy of the individuals' data. We had no visibility to what level of confidentiality our clients' promised their customers, so we made no effort to meet their privacy requirements - which I would presume to be more strict than ours, as some clients were non-US companies.

At one point, a potential client sent a security audit team to our facilities to verify that we met their requirements. For that day, we locked the door to the server room, but otherwise left it open for maximum airflow. (too many systems in a closet designed to house a phone system) In any case, all their data was on the harddrive in my development box anyway, a system sitting on the floor about 8 feet from the back door to the office. A setup that I imagine would hardly have passed their audit, had they asked. That hard drive contains hundreds of thousands of individuals, their addresses and clear-text user ids & passwords to some websites. Since we all know that most users are lazy and use the same password for multiple purposes, the information on that system could be extremely valuable to certain people.

In the face of all this, management expressed essentially no concern for privacy of those individuals, or the potential liability associated with the lack of security.

The forces of Privacy are surrounding the US

[BritGeek]

Of course, one of the interesting things about Privacy (and the lack of data privacy rights for US citizens and residents), is that this whole debate is slowly becoming irrelevant.

I work for a large multi-national financial services company, and we have long been aware how much more stringent the laws are in other jurisdictions. (This is not exactly news.) However, the interesting thing is that there has been a clear trend over the last few years towards increasingly stringent regulations in other countries too. So, the net effect is that the US is slowly being surrounded by laws that are more privacy friendly than those in the US. (Hard to be *less* privacy friendly than the US, generally speaking.)

As companies like mine get more and more forced to adopt practices that conform to the most restrictive of these various bits of legislation, we are tending more and more to say "To Hell with what you can do in the US, we'll just go with something much more like Germany's". Of course, this tendency is only exerting leverage on multi-nationals, but that is a significant chunk of the companies that we all do business with, so who knows?...

What about inadvertant disclosure?

[JohnnyComeLately]

One of the things that struck me about my transition from a large company to a small was the attention to some of the smaller details. At the large company (Sprint) they had policies in place to ensure the small issues like this were taken care of.

TO be specific, at Sprint all sensitive data was put in a "Shred Bin". This meant anything from customer address, phone numbers and info to detailed network drawings with server names, IP addresses and such. Going to a small company, we have invoices dating back a half dozen years with credit card numbers in an unlocked filing cabinet. How many small companies expose their customers' data through oversights like this? I would suspect the number is staggering. Most businesses really just don't think about it because they think, 'Well its been OK for years'. Kinda like leaving the front door unlocked. You may be OK for a dozen years but all it takes is one felon escapee jiggling your front door to change your world.

Now the small company I work for has policies in place. We shred sensitive data, lock up dead-tree with customer info, etc.

Just a different prespective I haven't seen someone post yet.
John

Re:In other news

[Paulrothrock]

Is there ever anything good to say about this country?

Yes. It borders Canada.

Re:In other news

[Lehk228]

The good thing about USA is that it's Not Canada

Re:In other news

[mahdi13]

America, but is there ever anything good to say about this country?

#1 porn exporter?

Re:Strange

[ergo98]

I find this very strange coming out of an essentially socialist country.

Isn't it nice when you can box up complex democracies and give them simple, clear-cut black and white titles?

Definitions

Capitalism (AKA the USA): Citizens are forced, through an extremely heavy handed beauracracy (the IRS) of an overbearing government, to hand over a good part of their paycheque to subsidize farmers who can't make ends meet, steel makers that are uncompetitive, a wood industry that just can't cut it, pardon the pu

Re:Maybe Because We Don't Care

[IWannaBeAnAC]

Actually, I would say instead that the vast amount of people (yeah yeah we are both making wild guesses here) don't want to have to care whether some company is going to keep track of which toothpaste you buy, etc etc.

There is a huge difference. There is also a philosophical difference between how personal information is treated in Europe (and Canada!) versus the USA - in the USA, personal data collected by a company is the property of that company and they can do whatever they like with it. In Europe,