ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) (06/02/91)
In all the fuss over Marketplace:Households, many things that Lotus did to make this product less objectionable were overlooked. Before you say "The very idea of such a product is objectionable", let me point out (as Brad Templeton noted in an earlier posting) that all the information Lotus was going to sell is already available. This information *WILL* be sold -- the only question is who will sell it. First of all, Lotus was concerned with misuse of the data. They used Dr. Alan Westin of Columbia to help design safeguards to protect consumers. Macworld describes Westin as "recognized as the grand guru of privacy issues." They limited the information so that income and lifestyle information was only tracked down to the zip code level, not the individual level. They also put dummy names and addresses into the data base. This would allow them to detect when a mailing list was made from the CD-ROM and then charge for that list. They would also be able to detect misuse of the data this way. But Marketplace:Households is dead. Equifax and other companies still have the data. It only costs about $2/disc to produce CD-ROM (plus a fixed charge of about $1000 for initial mastering). What's going to happen now is clear. Other companies will buy this data an make CD-ROMs available. Companies that A) don't have the resources that Lotus has to design systems to limit access to the disc, and B) don't have any products that are sold to end users like Lotus does, so don't give a damn if people don't like them. The result is going to be that the data will come out on CD-ROM, but in a form that is much more objectionable than Marketplace:Households was. If you don't like the data that is available on you, you will have to deal with N companies that probably don't care, rather than one large company that has an interest in keeping consumers happy. Instead of working so hard to kill this product, groups like the CPSR should have worked with Lotus to minimize the privacy problems. The way to fight this kind of database is to get Congress to act, not to get the most responsible and concerned provider of such data to leave the field, leaving it open to other less concerned companies. Tim Smith
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (06/03/91)
In article <42889@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: > The result is going to be that the data will come out on > CD-ROM, but in a form that is much more objectionable than > Marketplace:Households was. > The way to fight this kind of database is to get Congress to > act, not to get the most responsible and concerned provider > of such data to leave the field, leaving it open to other > less concerned companies. Uhhhh. So are you claiming that if Lotus had stayed in the business, these other sleazes wouldn't have gotten involved? Think again, bub. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
johne@hp-vcd.HP.COM (John Eaton) (06/04/91)
<<<< < Before you say "The very idea of such a product is objectionable", < let me point out (as Brad Templeton noted in an earlier posting) < that all the information Lotus was going to sell is already < available. This information *WILL* be sold -- the only question < is who will sell it. ---------- The question is in what form will the information will be provided. Computers have allowed us to take the same old information that has always been available and process it to derive new information. Databases can be combined and relationships that were previously undetectable can be discovered. For example when the only phone listing available is in paper form it becomes next to impossible to discover who is living with who. But in computer form you simply sort by phone number and identify multiple numbers with different names. You now know who is living with who. In the old days thieves would "case" a neighborhood and try to find a house with lots of pawnable items and no one home. Now you can query a database for a list of homes with the desired consumer profile within a certain neighborhood.If one looks empty then you can call their number from your cellular to make sure. If no one answers then you can break in. Of course they never explained that buying a super mongo stereo on plastic could have these side effects John Eaton !hp-vcd!johne
jaffer@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Aubrey Jaffer) (06/06/91)
>They also put dummy names and addresses into the data base. This would >allow them to detect when a mailing list was made from the CD-ROM and >then charge for that list. They would also be able to detect misuse of >the data this way. This is standard practice for mailing list vendors. Mailing lists are rented, not bought. Believe me, the other vendors will make sure that their lists are not used more than once per purchase. Aubrey Jaffer Database Marketing Corp. 174 Middlesex Turnpike Burlington, MA 01803
scratch@hpb.cis.pitt.edu (Steven J. Owens) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun03.075217.26914@rfengr.com> rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) writes: >In article <42889@cup.portal.com> ts@cup.portal.com (Tim W Smith) writes: > >> The result is going to be that the data will come out on CD-ROM, but in >> a form that is much more objectionable than Marketplace:Households was. >> The way to fight this kind of database is to get Congress to act, not >> to get the most responsible and concerned provider of such data to >> leave the field, leaving it open to other less concerned companies. > >Uhhhh. So are you claiming that if Lotus had stayed in the >business, these other sleazes wouldn't have gotten involved? >Think again, bub. No, I think what he's claiming is that it's better to have a single, large target that's sensitive to consumer attacks (i.e. Lotus) than many small rhino-hided targets who couldn't care less. Makes some sense, but how much? (not taking sides here, trying to clarify what looks like a misperception). Steven J. Owens scratch@hpb.cis.pitt.edu Puff the Fractal Dragon