lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) (04/20/91)
Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? There's the major credit agencies, of course (TRW and so forth...); we all know about Equifax by now, who else is in the business? Do these people have a trade rag?
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (04/21/91)
In article <8683@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes: >Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? There's the major credit >agencies, of course (TRW and so forth...); we all know about Equifax >by now, who else is in the business? Every person now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, as well as most of their more recent challengers. The Smithsonian Museums, St. Jude's Children Hospital, Greenpeace, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, People for the American Way, The National Rifle Association, EE Times, etc. The list goes on and on. All of these organizations and most organizations in the United States compile, maintain, buy and/or sell lists about individuals and other organizations. In one way, or another, all of the above make it profitable to compile information about individuals. /craig
lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) (04/23/91)
In article <8683@crash.cts.com> I wrote: >Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? There's the major credit >agencies, of course (TRW and so forth...); we all know about Equifax >by now, who else is in the business? And Craig Wilson said: >Every person now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. >Senate, as well as most of their more recent challengers. The Smithsonian >Museums, St. Jude's Children Hospital, Greenpeace, Mothers Against Drunk >Drivers, People for the American Way, The National Rifle Association, EE >Times, etc. Okay, gee, thanks Craig, I was completely unaware that mailing lists may be sold by organizations constituted for other purposes. What a revelation! To make it *completely* clear: I'm interested in those organizations whose *sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal" information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc. -- Laird P. Broadfield | Year after year, site after UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb | site, and I still can't think The Net: lairdb@crash.cts.com | of a funny enough .sig.
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (04/23/91)
In article <8741@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) writes: >In article <8683@crash.cts.com> I wrote: >*sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal" >information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list >data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc. > Do you think that the lists that charitable organizations, special interest groups, and profession specific companies use are not fine-tuned using 'lifestyle' parameters? If I donate to Greenpeace, does that help define my lifestyle? Will Minnesota Freeze target me as more likely to provide funds? You want to get a list of the big 'drug' dealers, and don't care about the users. Just because Lotus decided to pull out of the business doesn't mean that there aren't others that will take their place. After all, there are customers waiting. Excuse me, if I misinterpreted your original request. I was not trying to be condescending or cute. I just feel that companies that are legally filling the need for 'lifestyle' information are not criminals. The criminal aspect comes in when false data is disseminated. Or, when the information is used as a weapon, ala Robert Bork's video selections. /craig
gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu (Just another theatre geek.....) (04/23/91)
In article <8741@crash.cts.com> lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) writes: >In article <8683@crash.cts.com> I wrote: >>Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? There's the major credit >>agencies, of course (TRW and so forth...); we all know about Equifax >>by now, who else is in the business? >And Craig Wilson said: >>Every person now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. >>Senate, as well as most of their more recent challengers. The Smithsonian >>Museums, St. Jude's Children Hospital, Greenpeace, Mothers Against Drunk >>Drivers, People for the American Way, The National Rifle Association, EE >>Times, etc. > >Okay, gee, thanks Craig, I was completely unaware that mailing lists may >be sold by organizations constituted for other purposes. What a revelation! > >To make it *completely* clear: I'm interested in those organizations whose >*sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal" >information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list >data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc. Any organization with fundraising departments. There are a lot of freelancers out there as well. Of course, these folks are mostly interested in individuals and corporations with large net worths...... -- ----- Roger Tang, gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu Middle-class weenie, art nerd and all-around evil nasty spermchucker
seaotter@athena.mit.edu (Amazing Stace) (04/24/91)
Laird Broadfield: > Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? [...] An amusing thought -- no, a necessary one: "watching the watch- ers." I imagine the US Department of Commerce might be able to create such a list with a little effort. Craig Wilson: > Every person now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and > the U.S. Senate, as well as most of their more recent chal- > lengers. The Smithsonian Museums, St. Jude's Children Hospital, > Greenpeace, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, People for the Ameri- > can Way, The National Rifle Association, EE Times, etc. Actually it's kind of interesting to know that to a large extent the whole concept of direct (and directed) mass mailings ori- ginated with the early fundraising efforts of Richard Viguerie's NCPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee). Ap- parently Viguerie got started by simply going into various of- fices and copying names of registered Republicans from the voter rolls. This contained just the most basic information: name, ad- dress, fact of registering Republican. Over time, records of contributions (frequency and amounts) begin to play a role in management of the fund-raising campaign. There are some in- teresting books in the Cambridge (MA) public library detailing all this -- sorry, no titles. Okay, so it doesn't *directly* answer Laird's question: I just thought it was interesting. Ciao, Mike Zraly | Mike Zraly (the old ssrat) | Whenever you find that you are on the side | | | of the majority, it is time to reform. | | mzraly@ldbvax.dnet.lotus.com | | | or c/o seaotter@athena.mit.edu | -- Mark Twain | --
markz@ssc.UUCP (Mark Zenier) (04/24/91)
In article <8741@crash.cts.com>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) writes: > To make it *completely* clear: I'm interested in those organizations whose > *sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal" > information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list > data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc. The article in the Wall Street Journal mentioned in this newsgroup is a good place to start. (March 14 ? (1991) ). Also a good browse of business magazines is interesting. In a recent mag (Forbes or Business Week) was an article on AVDO Systems, the direct mailer which is going to branch out into the privacy invasion business. (On that note, if anyone wants to see what Len Rose looks like, there was a picture of him with an article on the Secret Service crackdown, three weeks ago in Business Week.) Markz@ssc.uucp mzenier@polari.uucp
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (04/25/91)
In <1991Apr23.133156.5822@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >Do you think that the lists that charitable organizations, special interest >groups, and profession specific companies use are not fine-tuned using >'lifestyle' parameters? If I donate to Greenpeace, does that help define >my lifestyle? Will Minnesota Freeze target me as more likely to provide >funds? [...] Here is a data point from one nonprofit organization: Unless a member requests otherwise, the ACLU will *lease* (not see) that member's name and address. Thus, a member can expect to an item or two a week from organizations like Greenpeace, etc. How can this be you ask? Doesn't this contradict the ACLU's policy of keeping its membership list confidential? Well, the ACLU doesn't actually give the list to Greenpeace. They give it to a trusted junk-mail printer. Greenpeace also gives their material to the junk-mail printer. Then the junk-mail printer puts address to envelope and then puts it all in the mailbox. - Carl p.s. I assume that the ACLU gets access to the Greenpeace mailing list under similar conditions. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) (04/25/91)
In <1991Apr23.133156.5822@com50.c2s.mn.org> craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) writes: >>In article <8741@crash.cts.com> (Laird Broadfield) writes: >>*sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal" >>information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list >>data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc. >You want to get a list of the big 'drug' dealers, and don't care about the >users. Just because Lotus decided to pull out of the business doesn't mean >that there aren't others that will take their place. After all, there are >customers waiting. *Exactly.* I realize that any sensible organization will purchase lists that are tailored to their needs, and that many, once they have a list, will add information in order to more accurately target their mail-ees. As many people remarked, Lotus's only blunder was in publicizing their product so widely; many 'dealers' exist already, including those from whom Lotus was purchasing their data. The 'dealers' (good simile, Craig) are who I'm curious about; let's collect some information on *them* for a change. Who are information dealers? What info do they gather? Do they have a trade association? Do they have a publication? Do they have a PAC? >Excuse me, if I misinterpreted your original request. I was not trying to >be condescending or cute. I just feel that companies that are legally >filling the need for 'lifestyle' information are not criminals. The >criminal aspect comes in when false data is disseminated. Or, when the >information is used as a weapon, ala Robert Bork's video selections. (S'okay, I probably over-flamed a little.) I agree with your statements above *entirely* (although I'm inclined to let market forces take care of the 'false data' problem.) If you don't want something known, don't tell anyone. Period. I don't feel any malice toward a mail order shop that resells my N&A, I gave it to them. If I'm dumb enough to use my credit card to pay for groceries, then I've given them the data; do with it what they will. [Digressing somewhat, but...] IMO, if *any* regulation is required (something I'm _always_ skeptical of) it should be in the direction of _more_information_freedom_for_the_individual_, not less for anyone. Why should I have to show ID to get a private mailbox? Or a bank account? Or buy groceries? I vaguely remember (but can't find the reference, dammit) a case (CA?) some years ago where the decision said that it was *not* unlawful to use another name as long as it was not for an unlawful purpose. Yay! That's the kind of law we *do* need; not more regulations restricting private business transactions. -- Laird P. Broadfield | Year after year, site after UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb | site, and I still can't think INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com | of a funny enough .sig.
lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) (04/25/91)
In <1991Apr23.170454.19881@athena.mit.edu> seaotter@athena.mit.edu (Amazing Stace) writes: >Laird Broadfield: >> Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? [...] >An amusing thought -- no, a necessary one: "watching the watch- >ers." I imagine the US Department of Commerce might be able to >create such a list with a little effort. >[stuff about Richard Viguerie's initial impetus and growth] >Okay, so it doesn't *directly* answer Laird's question: I just >thought it was interesting. Actually, from what I read, Viguerie has had such success that he no longer limits himself to Republican and independent listings, he now writes down everyone he can. As such (and even if he didn't, since he's so significant) he's quite an appropriate answer. Now: What does he know? How large are his lists? What percent of his line items are filled in over what percent of his list? (Get the idea? No reason we shouldn't accumulate our own lists of these folks....) -- Laird P. Broadfield | Year after year, site after UUCP: {ucsd, nosc}!crash!lairdb | site, and I still can't think INET: lairdb@crash.cts.com | of a funny enough .sig.
bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) (04/25/91)
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > How can this be you ask? Doesn't this contradict the ACLU's policy > of keeping its membership list confidential? > > Well, the ACLU doesn't actually give the list to Greenpeace. Nice spin on that one, ACLU... I get (let's hypothesize) ACLU mailings. The ACLU list begets the Greenpeace list. I know that the junk mailer provides plausible deniability for both sides, but if I never was on the ACLU list, I'd never see the Greenpeace mailings. One organization has given their mailing list to the other, even if a middleman company puts the mailings together. -- Bob Bob Izenberg cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei [ ] "So young, so bad... So what!" 512 346 7019 Wendy O. Williams
ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) (04/26/91)
In article <57Hy12w164w@dogface> bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) writes: >kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > >> How can this be you ask? Doesn't this contradict the ACLU's policy >> of keeping its membership list confidential? >> >> Well, the ACLU doesn't actually give the list to Greenpeace. > >Nice spin on that one, ACLU... I get (let's hypothesize) ACLU mailings. >The ACLU list begets the Greenpeace list. I know that the junk mailer >provides plausible deniability for both sides, but if I never was on the >ACLU list, I'd never see the Greenpeace mailings. One organization has >given their mailing list to the other, even if a middleman company puts >the mailings together. >-- Bob I quote the Fall 1990 issue of Civil Liberties, the ACLU newsletter: We never literally give one of our lists to any organization that is party to a rental or exchange. Instead, we send it to a mailing house that prints labels on the participating organization's envelopes. That organization never knows what names are on it unless an individual responds to the organizations's mailing. Is there any reason to suspect that this is just a "spin"? As a member of the ACLU who is concerned about who gets my name from their list (of course, that's a moot point now that I've posted this! ;-) ), I believe that organizations using the ACLU list don't see my name. This belief is based on trust, of course, but since I personally know the NC CLU's staff and have met some of the national ACLU staff, I *do* trust them. ########################################################################## # George Entenman (ge@mcnc.org) # # 919/248-1953 (work) # # Besta e tu' 5 Bartram Drive # # Se voce' na~o viver Chapel Hill, NC 27514-4405 # # neste mundo.... 919/942-5858 # ##########################################################################
kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (04/26/91)
In <kadie.672519846@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu> I write: >Well, the ACLU doesn't actually give the list to Greenpeace. They give >it to a trusted junk-mail printer. Greenpeace also gives their >material to the junk-mail printer. Then the junk-mail printer puts >address to envelope and then puts it all in the mailbox. I like this system for four reasons: 1) my name/address/affiliation does not spread exponentially, thus the amount of junk mail I get (based on this information) stays constant. 2) If I tell the ACLU to stop leasing my name, the junk mail based on this information will stop quickly. 3) My privacy is protected (only my organization and the trusted junk mail producer every see the information) 4) It shows that there is a middleground between not sharing information and all and sharing it completely. Is suggests compromise provisions in a privacy law. -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) (04/27/91)
ge@mcnc.org (George Entenman) writes: > Is there any reason to suspect that this is just a "spin"? As a member > of the ACLU who is concerned about who gets my name from their list (of > course, that's a moot point now that I've posted this! ;-) ), I > believe that organizations using the ACLU list don't see my name. There must be something that I've missed here. Organization A sells/gives its list to a mailing house, to generate a mailing for Organization B. Even though B never sees your name, you still get the mailing. What I didn't see was the source of the satisfaction in B's not seeing your name but still using it. Because B then can't give/sell it to someone else? -- Bob Bob Izenberg cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei [ ] "So young, so bad... So what!" 512 346 7019 Wendy O. Williams
rsw@cs.brown.EDU (Bob Weiner) (04/27/91)
> In article <8741@crash.cts.com>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) writes: > > To make it *completely* clear: I'm interested in those organizations whose > > *sole and/or primary business* is the collection and sale of "personal" > > information, especially those whose datasets extend beyond mailing-list > > data, into lifestyle, health, financial, etc. > Please, please, for those of us who are trying to comprehend the mental tidbits so freely exchanged on this group, it would help immensely if you explained what you are talking about whenever you decide to talk about it. (Maybe some people should read USENET etiquette rules.) Although, I`m just using this one article as an example, I've seen this same behavior in over twenty articles recently. And I use a thread or topic-based newsreader, yet I still can't follow this stuff and I imagine others are in the same boat. > The article in the Wall Street Journal mentioned in this newsgroup > is a good place to start. (March 14 ? (1991) ). Give a short detail of what the article concerned. Which posting referred to it, etc. > > Also a good browse of business magazines is interesting. In a > recent mag (Forbes or Business Week) was an article on AVDO Systems, the > direct mailer which is going to branch out into the privacy invasion > business. > What, specifically, do you mean when you say they are going to branch out into the privacy invasion business. Some of us actually want to know. > (On that note, if anyone wants to see what Len Rose looks like, there Who is Len Rose? > was a picture of him with an article on the Secret Service crackdown, Crackdown of what? > three weeks ago in Business Week.) Filling in such details really doesn't take that long. People do it all the time in other newsgroups. Bob -- Bob Weiner rsw@cs.brown.edu
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/06/91)
In article <1991Apr23.170454.19881@athena.mit.edu>, seaotter@athena.mit.edu (Amazing Stace) writes: > Laird Broadfield: >> Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? [...] > > An amusing thought -- no, a necessary one: "watching the watch- > ers." I imagine the US Department of Commerce might be able to > create such a list with a little effort. > This thread is getting ridiculous. Think about the business "these folks" are in. There is a list in your local yellow pages. In the Cleveland Business to Business yellow pages it is filed under "Advertising, Direct Mail". > > Craig Wilson: >> Every person now serving in the U.S. House of Representatives and >> the U.S. Senate, as well as most of their more recent chal- >> lengers. The Smithsonian Museums, St. Jude's Children Hospital, >> Greenpeace, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, People for the Ameri- >> can Way, The National Rifle Association, EE Times, etc. > > Actually it's kind of interesting to know that to a large extent > the whole concept of direct (and directed) mass mailings ori- > ginated with the early fundraising efforts of Richard Viguerie's > NCPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee). I was getting mail from Publisher's Central Bureau long before Viguerie got into the act. Also Publisher's Clearing House. > Ap- > parently Viguerie got started by simply going into various of- > fices and copying names of registered Republicans from the voter > rolls. This contained just the most basic information: name, ad- > dress, fact of registering Republican. Over time, records of > contributions (frequency and amounts) begin to play a role in > management of the fund-raising campaign. Someone who had worked in Viguerie's office told of wanting a mailing list to fight a gun control initiative in Texas. The stroke of brilliance was to buy a list of pick-up truck owners from the DMV. (Every pick-up truck in Texas has a gun rack in the rear window.) dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/06/91)
In article <8788@crash.cts.com>, lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird Broadfield) writes: > In <1991Apr23.170454.19881@athena.mit.edu> seaotter@athena.mit.edu (Amazing Stace) writes: > >>Laird Broadfield: >>> Is anyone keeping a list of these folks? [...] > >>An amusing thought -- no, a necessary one: "watching the watch- >>ers." I imagine the US Department of Commerce might be able to >>create such a list with a little effort. > >>[stuff about Richard Viguerie's initial impetus and growth] > >>Okay, so it doesn't *directly* answer Laird's question: I just >>thought it was interesting. > > Actually, from what I read, Viguerie has had such success that he no > longer limits himself to Republican and independent listings, he now > writes down everyone he can. As such (and even if he didn't, since he's > so significant) he's quite an appropriate answer. Now: What does he know? > How large are his lists? What percent of his line items are filled in > over what percent of his list? (Get the idea? No reason we shouldn't > accumulate our own lists of these folks....) > I already commented about the general availibility of lists of these folks published by the phone companies. Now, what kind of data is available? In a library near you there is a copy of Standard Rate and Data Service. Essentially the catalog from the list broker of the same name. In this tome, comparable in bulk to the Manhattan phone directory, you will find descriptions of a large number of lists that are available. The descriptions are intended to contain enough detail so one can decide whether he wants to rent the list on the basis of the description. I don't know if SRDS handles Viguerie's lists. One direct mail guru advised his son to browse in SRDS and pick out a list, then figure out what he could sell to that list. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (05/06/91)
In article <57Hy12w164w@dogface>, bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) writes: > kadie@herodotus.cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) writes: > >> Well, the ACLU doesn't actually give the list to Greenpeace. > > Nice spin on that one, ACLU... This is not an ACLU idea. It is standard operating practice in an industry that rents out one time use of a valuable business asset. > I get (let's hypothesize) ACLU mailings. > The ACLU list begets the Greenpeace list. I know that the junk mailer > provides plausible deniability for both sides, but if I never was on the > ACLU list, I'd never see the Greenpeace mailings. One organization has > given their mailing list to the other, even if a middleman company puts > the mailings together. The middleman company is called a bonded letter shop. The mailing list owner does not sell its list. It rents one time use of the list for a use it considers suitable. (You don't want the people on your list to become annoyed - you screen carefully the packages that mailers want to send to your list to make sure you consider them suitable for your friends. And you screen it before you contract to let them send it to your list.) To make sure the list is used only once, the list is not delivered to the organization renting it, only to the bonded letter shop. The bond is to protect the list owner from potential thieves. For the same reason, the list is salted - the owner puts his great aunt Sally on it, and a bunch of other entries that are there only so he will know when mail goes to the list. Of course, dear Aunt Sally gives him, unopened, all mail that comes with her name misspelled that way. dan herrick herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com
bei@dogface (Bob Izenberg) (05/07/91)
herrickd@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com writes: > (Every pick-up > truck in Texas has a gun rack in the rear window.) Nonsense. -- Bob Bob Izenberg cs.utexas.edu!dogface!bei [ ] "So young, so bad... So what!" 512 346 7019 Wendy O. Williams
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (05/07/91)
Information brokers do not only deal in such banal data as addresses and phones, annoying as that may be. For $200, one can get an account with one of the franchised information brokers and use a personal computer to assemble a dossier on an individual that includes everything from house buying habits to criminal record (arrests if these are not deleted from the record) to interviews with neighbors about the person. And some of the more dubious services claim to have access to credit reports, various blacklists (like people who file unemployment claims against employers), and all sorts of nice things. No one checks this information and, once it is in circulation, anything goes. Bob Jacobson --
sms@menkar.usc.edu (Stephe Suitor) (05/10/91)
In article <8683@crash.cts.com> >Do these people have a trade rag? Though oriented towards general marketing as well as direct marketing, there is American Demographics ( "Consumer Trends for Business leaders" ). It is related to "The Wall Street Journal", and carries ads for companies that offer mailing lists tailored to your wants. They have an 800 number, and may give you a trial subscription. " ... [Lotus's Marketplace data] has been long been available from other suppliers [ like Equifax and VNU ]" sms The Nov/Dec 1990 Utne Reader, "The best of the alternative press", also has some articles about junk mail. From Paul Hawken's article, excerpted from the "Whole Earth Review": "One U.S. environmental organization spends nearly 80 percent of its revenues on postage, printing, and name rental in order to live off the remaining 20 percent." Utne also prints a 'representative sampling' of magazines and organizations to whom they rented their mailing list; some thing I often wanted to see.