cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (12/14/90)
Today's WALL STREET JOURNAL carries an alarming story about U.S. Post Office plans to begin selling a national address directory. At first, only addresses will be available. However, there are plans afoot to add names at some later date. The ostensible purpose of this is to make direct mail more efficient, so that the six percent of direct mail that now gets returned is redirected, so to speak. But the outcome could be the postal analog of Caller ID: instead of being dossiered on the basis of your telephone number, you will have dossiers about you built around your mailing patterns. Once the Caller ID and address dossiers are combined, the crosshairs will be on you. Accurate. Revealing. Direct. The article speaks of a subsequent plan, one that assigns distinct numbers to each address for the purpose of permitting people to put together personal mailing lists, "for Christmas cards, for example." Right. That's why the direct marketing people are salivating all over the JOURNAL's pages.... Bob Jacobson
kessler@hacketorium.Eng.Sun.COM (Tom &) (12/14/90)
You may also want to check out this weeks FORBES. There was a very pro lotus marketplace editorial in the communications/computing section. I recommend it if you're interested in the arguments people make for this kind of service.
abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) (12/14/90)
In article <12972@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >Today's WALL STREET JOURNAL carries an alarming story about U.S. Post >Office plans to begin selling a national address directory. At first, >only addresses will be available. However, there are plans afoot to >add names at some later date. I am missing part of the big problem here. The phone company has been making money with a "database" of phone numbers on a regional basis for years. In fact, it costs you money to be left out of their database. Are we, the supporters of the electronic frontier, the age of information, etc..., now saying that it is OK to distribute databases in printed form but not in machine-readable form? This particular situation, IMHO, is very different from that piece of garbage Lotus is selling. Here, we're talking about a list of addresses and names -- not dossiers or buying habits. If the phone companies suddenly began selling jointly a CD-ROM of all listed telephone numbers, addresses, and names, would you then complain? But I have a hypothetical question for you all... Several years ago, (at least 10..), the NY local NBC affiliate ran a special report on living in a fishbowl. My uncle was the news manager of the station at the time and was the only one willing to volunteer as a "test" to a Private I. they interviewed. The PI wanted to show how much information he could obtain about someone, given only a name and city, without leaving his desk. He obtained, in 24 hours, his address, all lease information on the apartment, salary, employment history, high school/college, where he grew up, where he shopped, family information, credit history, etc., etc... (The PI cheated and talked to my uncle's doorman for about 10 minutes). This was obviously in the pre marketing database days. This guy broke no laws. He just asked the right questions to the right people. So information has always been available. Anyone who ever wanted to know anything about anyone could find it out. It's scary, but true. The worst part about this was that if someone obtained false information through these pseudo-clandestine means, there could be serious consequences (depending of course upon what the information was used for). But no one would be held accountable for it. So now, some company wants to put all the information they can find on a big disk and make it available at a cost to the rest of the business world. If they are providing this information, and they are held accountable for its accuracy, and any individual can remove him or herself from the database, is this better? Is it worse? Does it make any difference? Are we, the pioneers of the electronic frontier afraid of the technology we support? Proper legal steps (many of which have been discussed here) need to be taken to make sure that all sides can benefit and be protected, but the development of "marketing databases" was inevitable. Finally, what is the difference between information in machine readable and human readable form as far as these discussions go? Does the fact that the info is in a more useable form change the legal implications of distributing the data? I think not. Just some fuel for the fire... ***Anti-flame clarification: This posting does NOT reflect support for Lotus or their marketing database. I DO support legislative steps required to protect those in "public" databases, although I'm not sure to what extent. ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include <std/dumquote.h> #include <std/disclaimer.h>
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (12/15/90)
>If a big company wants to provide this information and their
being held accountable...
No one is being held accountable for anything they put out.
Why do you think they are?zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) (12/17/90)
In article <ABRAMS.90Dec14094633@division.cs.columbia.edu> abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) writes: >In article <12972@milton.u.washington.edu> >cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >>Today's WALL STREET JOURNAL carries an alarming story about U.S. Post >>Office plans to begin selling a national address directory. At first, >>only addresses will be available. However, there are plans afoot to >>add names at some later date. > >I am missing part of the big problem here. The phone company has been >making money with a "database" of phone numbers on a regional basis >for years. In fact, it costs you money to be left out of their >database. Are we, the supporters of the electronic frontier, the age It costs you money to be IN the database. It costs more to have both a phone line and NOT be in the database. -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM
abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) (12/17/90)
In article <13017@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) takes me out of context and points out that I wrote: >If a big company wants to provide this information and their >being held accountable... He then goes on to say that: No one is being held accountable for anything they put out. Why do you think they are? He does, however, forget that I wrote: >***Anti-flame clarification: This posting does NOT reflect support >for Lotus or their marketing database. I DO support legislative >steps required to protect those in "public" databases, although I'm >not sure to what extent. And I also wrote: >Proper legal steps (many of which have been discussed here) need to be >taken to make sure that all sides can benefit and be protected, but >the development of "marketing databases" was inevitable. The whole point of my posting is that there are benefits IFF appropriate steps are taken. These steps should include accountability for information. If damage is done to me due to an error in the Lotus database, that's their fault, and I'm entitled to protection against that. The willingness to leave my name in their database because I might actually enjoy junk-mail (it normally doesn't bother me that much and makes great bathroom reading :-)) does not and can not be construed as a waiver of any rights or protections that I should have. ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include <std/dumquote.h> #include <std/disclaimer.h>
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (12/17/90)
This isn't a flame, Steven. It's simply to refute your statement, made without support, that those who are putting out automated databases like Marketplace are somehow "accountable." They aren't, unless a law or contract specifically makes them so. In the absence of such law and contracts -- and there are none bearing on this product to my knowledge, so long as it excludes certain protected credit and medical information -- Lotus is in no way accountable to those whose names it distributes in Market- place. It goes without saying that junk mail is highly unecological, in that it consumes billions of tons of paper and distributes millions of tons of toxic inks to waste dumps throughout the nation, but you are certainly entitled to receive it. You might also want the right to refuse it, however, or at least not to have your trash recepticles swollen by yet more waste. It should be a personal decision. Lotus chooses not to make it so. Bob Jacobson
abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) (12/18/90)
In article <13103@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >This isn't a flame, Steven. It's simply to refute your >statement, made without support, that those who are putting >out automated databases like Marketplace are somehow >"accountable." They aren't, unless a law or contract >specifically makes them so. In the absence of such law and >contracts -- and there are none bearing on this product to >my knowledge, so long as it excludes certain protected >credit and medical information -- Lotus is in no way >accountable to those whose names it distributes in Market- >place. I think we're agreeing -- I did say that I believe that legislative steps should be taken to make Lotus accoutnable, so that ALL people involved can benefit from the existance of the database. Without such db's, as I pointed out in the original posting, it would be impossible to enforce accountability for any information obtained about a person. Once everything is computerized, it is easier to have accoutability, IFF APPROPRIATE LEGISLATIVE STEPS ARE TAKEN. >It goes without saying that junk mail is highly unecological, >in that it consumes billions of tons of paper and distributes >millions of tons of toxic inks to waste dumps throughout the >nation, but you are certainly entitled to receive it. >You >might also want the right to refuse it, however, or at least >not to have your trash recepticles swollen by yet more waste. >It should be a personal decision. Lotus chooses not to make >it so. Wrong there. Lotus has the 800 number that you can call to get yourself off of the list. Once again, allow me to clarify myself. 1) I do not support Lotus' idea of the marketing database. I think it's a sleazeball way of racking up income and generating all kinds of additional junk mail that lots of people don't want. However, there is nothing illegal about junk mail (another issue totally). 2) Databases of people and their personal buying habits or lifestyles or whatever other information you can think of are available and will continue to be available. I see nothing wrong with this from a legal point of view, since people were always able to obtain nearly any informatio n they wanted about someone anyway. The way that all people can benefit from the new technology is to ensure that information providers are held accountable for the information they provide. Now those who request information are protected and those about whom information is requested are protected. I am unsure how I stand on the question of whether one has the right to be removed from a database. Lotus' lawyers probably convinced Lotus to take the safe way out and let people be deleted if they request. I haven't made up my own mind yet, as it is a very complex issue and goes beyond "privacy." ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include <std/dumquote.h> #include <std/disclaimer.h>
nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) (12/18/90)
An opportunity arises here to make a big dent in junk mail. If the
Post Office offers an address database, everyone should have the opportunity to
designate their address in various ways, such as "no unsolicited 3rd class
mail", or "no unsolicited mail". Mailers could be required to drop addresses
so designated from their mailings.
The Post Office already maintains a list of "persons who do not wish
to receive pornography", which provides a precedent for this service.
Consolidation of such filtering information would provide a significant
enhancement of service.
John Naglegl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/18/90)
In article <ABRAMS.90Dec17104901@division.cs.columbia.edu> abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) writes: > I see nothing wrong with this from a legal >point of view, since people were always able to obtain nearly any >informatio n they wanted about someone anyway. But you've missed the point that it's now easy to look at that information in bulk -- "Where are the over-65 rich widows in my neighborhood?" Finding that out used to be a laborious task; it seems Lotus allows you to do it in just a few keystrokes. Amazing what online information can be used for.
dveditz@dbase.A-T.COM (Dan Veditz) (12/18/90)
Steven Abrams (abrams@cs.columbia.edu) asks: > Are we, the pioneers of the electronic frontier afraid of the > technology we support? Yes. As we should be. Dip into the RISKS forum (comp.risks) if you are *not* afraid of the potential for harm that modern technology makes possible. -Dan Veditz uunet!ashtate!dveditz (I am not a Luddite, but I play one on TV.)
abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) (12/19/90)
In article <1990Dec17.210616.3399@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >But you've missed the point that it's now easy to look at that >information in bulk -- "Where are the over-65 rich widows in my >neighborhood?" Finding that out used to be a laborious task; it seems >Lotus allows you to do it in just a few keystrokes. Amazing what >online information can be used for. Is this sufficient reason for making databases illegal? This is almost along the lines of the "guns don't kill people" type of argument, with the major exception that there is nothing implicitly dangerous about data. ~~~Steve -- /************************************************* * *Steven Abrams abrams@cs.columbia.edu * **************************************************/ #include <std/dumquote.h> #include <std/disclaimer.h>
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/19/90)
In article <ABRAMS.90Dec18111027@division.cs.columbia.edu> abrams@cs.columbia.edu (Steven Abrams) writes: >Is this sufficient reason for making databases illegal? No. It's sufficient reason to be worried. Don't assume that everyone upset about the growing capability for database abuse is out to ban them. For example, Brad Templeton posted a very interesting proposal which would require databases to tag where information came from, and for people who submit information to databases to tell you when they collect the information. I *don't* want to receive junk mail, junk fax, and junk phone calls, and I will gladly shop at businesses that give me a choice to not get inundated.
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (12/20/90)
In article <22219@well.sf.ca.us> nagle@well.sf.ca.us (John Nagle) writes: > > An opportunity arises here to make a big dent in junk mail. If the >Post Office offers an address database, everyone should have the opportunity to >designate their address in various ways, such as "no unsolicited 3rd class >mail", or "no unsolicited mail". Mailers could be required to drop addresses >so designated from their mailings. > > The Post Office already maintains a list of "persons who do not wish >to receive pornography", which provides a precedent for this service. >Consolidation of such filtering information would provide a significant >enhancement of service. > > John Nagle This is a totally excellent idea. It was the basis of a bill that percolated around the California Legislature last session (I helped to draft it, AB 539, Moore, 1989) that would have enabled those in databases to generally designate themselves as recipients of third- party communications, or refusers thereof. Another bill that went down before lobbying from databases vendors and the telephone companies would have created a telephone database of "NO CALLS," available to all telemarketers for a fee (to cover the cost the the lists compilation). If you put your telephone number (not your name or address) into the list, which was to be maintained by the same organization that maintains other lists for utilities, anyone who called you with a pitch was liable for damages. Simple to administer, virtually no government intervention, and it would have limited the single largest bother to telephone customers, unwanted "junk calls." The telemarketers and the telephone companies preferred to push Caller ID, for the obvious reason that, while it appears to offer a (spurious) solution to junk calls, will actually stimulate them. Some thoughtful Congress member should get on the stick and start talking with the Post Office about John Nagle's suggestion...NOW. Bob Jacobson
craig@com50.c2s.mn.org (Craig Wilson) (12/20/90)
In article <12972@milton.u.washington.edu> cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) writes: >The article speaks of a subsequent plan, one that assigns distinct >numbers to each address for the purpose of permitting people to put >together personal mailing lists, "for Christmas cards, for example." >Right. That's why the direct marketing people are salivating all >over the JOURNAL's pages.... > >Bob Jacobson Prior to this fall's election, I spent a lot of time at the post office getting mailing lists carrier route sorted. Talking with the people there, I was told of a plan to add digits to the U.S. Zip Code in order to give every address a unique number. I did not find out when the proposed additional digits were to be added. /craig