jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) (05/30/91)
***** Privacy Alert *****
A company calling itself variously "American Business Information" or
"Online Information Network" was marketing some products at the recent
Spring Comdex that should make all people concerned with personal privacy
take note.
This is Lotus Marketplace all over again.
The first "product" is a dialup service whereby for a $35 subscription
fee, $1 per minute and 0.17 per name, one can retrieve names from
databases of:
Over 10 million U.S and Canadian businesses
Over 4.5 million "high Income" families.
The brochure brags that phone numbers are contained within better than
85% of the records. The business list contains the names of all
officers of the business, a description of the business, the number
of employees, the estimated annual income, the products made/sold and
through an optional extra-cost service, a profile of each company's
yellow page ad.
Though I did not get a brochure on it, I saw advertising in the booth
for similiar consumer databases.
The second product is what they call "Lists on Disc". This is a CD-ROM
in the full spirit of Lotus Marketplace. They advertise it as a "Complete
desktop marketing system for your PC". The brochure I could get my hands
on (the booth was crowded) concerns the same database as made available
in the online service above. I saw similiar brochures for consumer
databases.
If you find this product disturbing or want to make sure you are not in
any of the databases, the contact information is:
American Business Information
5711 S. 86th Circle,
PO Box 27374
Omaha, NE 68127
402 953 4565 voice, CD-ROM
402 331 1505 Fax, CD-ROM
402 593 4593 voice, dialup service
402 331 6681 Fax, dialup service
The geek who "signed" the up-front-and-personal letter inside the cover
page of the brochure is Bill Kerrey, Vice President.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC | "Purveyors of speed to the Trade" (tm)
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. | Home of the Nidgets (tm)
Marietta, Ga |
{emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd | "Vote early, Vote often"brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (05/30/91)
What's the surprise? Lotus didn't make Marketplace, they bought it from somebody else. In fact, Lotus was a remarkably responsible company and was fairly responsive by offering the "take me off the list" service. But if the product was marketable, then Lotus' cancellation was simply an opportunity for other firms who would not be as responsible about it as Lotus. Those who pressured Lotus to cancel it -- though we are far from sure that the pressure was the cause of the canellation -- did not serve their interests. Better Lotus than some other firms. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/02/91)
jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: }***** Privacy Alert ***** }A company calling itself variously "American Business Information" or }"Online Information Network" was marketing some products at the recent }Spring Comdex that should make all people concerned with personal privacy }take note. Actually, I think that these sorts of 'alerts' are just pissing into the wind, because... }The brochure brags that phone numbers are contained within better than }85% of the records. The business list contains the names of all }officers of the business, a description of the business, the number }of employees, the estimated annual income, the products made/sold and }through an optional extra-cost service, a profile of each company's }yellow page ad. ... }The second product is what they call "Lists on Disc". This is a CD-ROM }in the full spirit of Lotus Marketplace. They advertise it as a "Complete }desktop marketing system for your PC". The brochure I could get my hands }on (the booth was crowded) concerns the same database as made available }in the online service above. I saw similiar brochures for consumer }databases. ... this stuff is all public information for the most part, the compilation and marketing of it is perfectly legal, and since there is a market for it [just as there is a thriving market for mailing lists and such], barring some legal intervention there is just no way to stop it. It may offend us all to see this kind of stuff blatantly hawked, but that's life in the marketplace. The information is just sitting there, out in the open, and I don't see these last-ditch attempts to 'guide' where that information can and cannot go as being particularly effective. }If you find this product disturbing or want to make sure you are not in }any of the databases, the contact information is: In what way could you 'make sure' you are out of their databases? I can see no reason why they should be obligated to remove anything from their list simply because it bugs you to be there. Unlike Lotus, where they might CARE about consumer reaction [since they also market consumer products], I see no problem with a "strictly wholesale" operation not giving a sh*t if you're happy or not about it. /Bernie\
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (06/02/91)
In article <64456@bbn.BBN.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: >... this stuff is all public information for the most part, the >compilation and marketing of it is perfectly legal, You're arguing against a straw man. Just because it's legal doesn't mean that we have to like it. Just because information about me is available doesn't mean I want people to distribute it. > I >can see no reason why they should be obligated to remove anything from >their list simply because it bugs you to be there. Perhaps it's time to propose legislation, such as Brad Templeton's suggestions.
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (06/07/91)
In article <64456@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > > In what way could you 'make sure' you are out of their databases? I > can see no reason why they should be obligated to remove anything from > their list simply because it bugs you to be there. The reason the Direct Marketers Association (whatever they call themselves) and Lotus are happy to remove names on request is because those names reduce the value of the mailing list, purging people like Bernie Cosell and John deArmond (sorry if I spelled your name wrong) makes the list cleaner and more valuable. The direct marketers who buy the lists do not want to send mail to people's wastebaskets. > Unlike Lotus, where > they might CARE about consumer reaction [since they also market > consumer products], I see no problem with a "strictly wholesale" > operation not giving a sh*t if you're happy or not about it. Their customers care. Therefore, they care. Didn't Lotus offer the removal service in the first announcement of their proposed product? dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (06/08/91)
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: }In article <64456@bbn.BBN.COM>, cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: }> }> In what way could you 'make sure' you are out of their databases? I }> can see no reason why they should be obligated to remove anything from }> their list simply because it bugs you to be there. }The reason [they] }are happy to remove names on request is }because those names reduce the value of the mailing list... You overlooked one word in my sentence: "obligated". We surely agree that a well-trimmed and well-focused list is a more valuable commodity than is one all filled with 'circular filers'. But that is a *business* decision and has nothing to do with the law or with privacy. }> Unlike Lotus, where }> they might CARE about consumer reaction [since they also market }> consumer products], I see no problem with a "strictly wholesale" }> operation not giving a sh*t if you're happy or not about it. }Their customers care. Therefore, they care. Didn't Lotus offer }the removal service in the first announcement of their proposed }product? Again, you slightly missed the point of my comment: there is a sense among the righteously indignant that one can stamp ones foot, yell "THEY CANT DO THAT TO ME", and somehow _compel_ them to remove you. When the fact is that *IF* they acquiesce to your removal request [not your *demand*, certainly], it is purely at their pleasure. We might agree that it is bad business to knowingly keep hostile entries on the list, but that's not _our_ business decision to make. If they tell you to take a hike, that's _their_ decision to make, and live with. /Bernie\