The Web offers bottomless information, bountiful entertainment—or at least the pursuit of it—and best of all, anonymity.
But like tracks in snow, the ability to creep around the Net without making prints is fast melting. In the age of high technology and big-bucks marketing, the practice of tracking a surfer’s interests is making privacy a candidate for the endangered species list.
We’ve all read the stories that scream from the papers: employees being fired after sending salacious and inappropriate email at the office. There’s been talk of software allowing companies to tag what sites their employees visit during the workday. But privacy invasion isn’t just a 9-to-5 indignity. Surfing the Web during your own time, on your own computer, can also be privy to others. This information can then be used in marketing efforts, and even resold to others that want your business.
Privacy advocates have long hurled insults at privacy enemy poster child DoubleClick, a company that tracks Web users and compiles databases on their usage patterns. Many sites ask for information before you can visit a certain section of their site. Email addresses, mailing addresses, and full names are all par for the course. But some questions—household income, for instance—go too far and are most assuredly an arsenal that Web sites can offer to advertisers as a way to prove how lucrative the people are that glance at their banner ads.
While visiting one Web site, I was annoyed that I couldn’t get past a certain page unless I input my date of birth. Not wanting to give up any personal information that could later be used as ammunition by marketing companies already equipped with my email, I specified my date of birth as 1/01/00. I now receive offers for senior citizen discounts even though I still have more than 30 years until I reach that threshold! This example shows the trickle effect of marketing and selling name lists is alive and well on the Net.
If you’re shrugging your shoulders at the lack of severity of this problem with the notion we are all used to being bombarded with advertising, telemarketing, or promotional gimmicks customized just for us, read on. Getting your name removed from mailing lists is possible (by contacting Direct Marketing Association’s Mailing Preference Services, for instance). But reclaiming information once it is disseminated through the Internet may not be as easy.
According to the U.S. Privacy Protection Study Commission, the perils of technology were clear even two decades ago. "The real danger is the gradual erosion of individual liberties through the automation, integration, and interconnection of many small, separate record-keeping systems, each of which alone may seem innocuous, even benevolent, and wholly justifiable," the report stated. The Privacy Rights Clearinghouse (www.privacyrights.org), a nonprofit agency based in California, estimates some 400,000 thefts of identification—a person illegally using personal information of someone else—occur each year at a cost of some $2 billion.
Some 400,000 thefts of identification—a person illegally using personal information of someone else—occur each year at a cost of some $2 billion.
Even President Clinton addressed the looming problem of privacy concerns in the 21st century during his State of the Union address. "First and foremost, we have to safeguard our citizen’s privacy." There are concerns in the medical field, financial institutions, and even genetic engineering that make privacy a somber dilemma to be tackled. Keep in mind there’s a cottage industry of private detective online agencies that promise to deliver more information than you ever want to know about anyone—that includes prior convictions, buying habits, and credit status, to name a few. Could this one day mean that a prospective groom, bent on one knee, can be handed a list of incriminating facts from his beloved based on information from years ago? Could an employer get information on the personal buying habits of employees? It’s possible.
It’s no wonder privacy has become a front-burner issue in Washington DC. In February 1999, financial institutions were scrutinized for their practice of sharing customer information. In a proposed rulemaking, the Treasury Department and The Federal Reserve, along with other government agencies, issued a joint notice to govern sharing customer information with third parties, says the Electronic Privacy Information Center (www.epic.org).
If you think about it, a company renting out your name and mailing list to another solicitor may be annoying, but it’s not harmful. But in the case of Internet privacy infractions, the retelling of detailed information you’ve shared on a Web site, when you thought it was a sanctuary, could be quite harmful. The privacy policies of leading Web sites—especially in the health field where information is most sensitive—are being questioned by consumer advocates. Most Web sites have a privacy policy, but some are being accused of not practicing what they preach.
In February 1999, Georgetown University’s Health Privacy Project pointed out disturbing privacy processes by big-name health sites—drkoop.com, ivillage.com, yahoo.com, webmd.com, and onhealth.com. According to the report, some companies were giving away email addresses and other information, even after the site had specified it would not. The consequences to these actions could be severe. If a Web site visitor requested information about a medical condition, and the information and your email address was relayed to a pharmaceutical company for solicitation, then your company—which could be monitoring your email correspondence—might discover something not intended for it to know. Eventually, if all information is compiled, could medical records be viewed by other solicitors, like financial institutions?
Would your mortgage company know what prescriptions you take and what ailments you have? Do they have any right to know this personal information?
What are some solutions? Well, be careful what information you disseminate. Don’t give out a social security number without knowing who is receiving it and why they need it. And don’t provide more information than needed. If you visit sites that you don’t want tracked, check out some of the privacy enabling software, or the Anonymizer.com browsers that can scramble your information. Look into "Opt Out" options that allow you to retain your privacy, and make sure your browser can disable "cookies" that can be used to track your travels.
Of course, the Big Brother syndrome isn’t just happening on the Web. The cavalcade of wireless technology opens up a privacy can of worms as well. Wireless phones are notoriously "non-private," allowing amateurs to tap into conversations with radio scanners. More of a problem a few years ago than today, cellular phones can be "cloned" and that number can then be used by someone else to rack up huge phone bills. With the advent of personal communications services (PCS) technology using digital transmissions, there is less of a threat of cloning today. Since 1994, the practice has cost the wireless industry more than $480 million in lost revenue, according to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.
New wireless technology promises more convenience but possibly at the cost of privacy. Location-based technology allowing users to get messages and information about retailers or restaurants in their immediate area has become a highly valued service. But this means, depending on the technology deployed by the provider, being able to track a wireless subscriber’s location at all times. For companies that grant their employees subsidies for wireless use, this could be a bonanza in checking up on a wayward worker.
There are also more and more advertising-based free services available that ask for a user’s demographic information, such as age, likes, and dislikes. These services then pair up advertising messages with the appropriate target. Some of these companies have said they will slowly acquire more and more information about their customers, so advertisers have a narrow target for their message. Sure, it’s free, but is it worth your privacy?
According to the Center for Democracy and Technology, in June 1998, the Federal Trade Commission released a report that found only 2% of Web sites had good privacy notices. (If you want more information on privacy bandits in the technical frontier, visit privacyplace.com.) When more Web users are wary of the peeping problem and put up their privacy dukes, there will be more privacy-conscious sites out there.
Join the Discussion (0)
Become a Member or Sign In to Post a Comment