Amazon Cited By FTC For Deceptive Practices 61
target writes: "An article from salon reports that the FTC has ruled that amazon and its subsidiary alexa 'probably deceived customers' by passing on to the compaines personal information. Not that they're going to do anything but point it out, of course." Note that this is about different aspects of Amazon's privacy policy than reported in this story a few days ago, where the powers that be decided that removing 'opt-out' choices, among other things, did not deceive customers.
Re:Get Over It? Maybe, Maybe Not (Score:1)
Re:amazon and Star Wars (Score:1)
I wonder if anyone will really mod this up as 'interesting'? :)
--
This is Alexa, not really Amazon (Score:1)
I wouldn't say they were "cited" (Score:3)
how is this different from any other marketing information gathering device (for sale databases, grocery store name here cards, etc)
everyone is watching what their buyers are purchasing.. Most grocery stores don't tell you that they are going to do that when you sign up for their "savings cards", how is what Amazon doing any different?
Oh the irony (Score:1)
Re:Semi-related (Score:2)
---
my message to feedback@amazon.com (Score:1)
Here's the email I sent to Amazon.com letting them know how I feel:
The worst part is, I don't really believe this will accomplish much. I'd like to believe that such behavior does have a chilling effect on ecommerce. More likely, I'm the minority in a sea of lemmings with open pocketbooks.
Who DIDN'T see this coming? (Score:2)
I've said for a year now that Amazon has been taking a loss on its retail divison to build up the most incredibly targeted marketing database in history. Customers of Amazon could see it in the extensive preferences & rating system that they have used throughout their site.
Retail booksales has such a narrow margin these days that if Amazon were ever to turn a profit, they HAD to do something like this.
Lessons learned:
Scott1) Information is King, Queen, AND Crown Prince.
2) Don't exceed your comfort zone when it comes to giving away personal information just for a good price.
3) The almighty buck trumps the hell out of Privacy Statements.
Privacy Policies are now laughable (Score:5)
It's just another chilling reminder that any kind of contract isn't worth much more than the paper (the screen) it's printed on if someone with a lot of money wants to break it and some little person like me doesn't have the resources to fight it.
Thanks, Amazon, for adding to the restoral of my faith in humanity.
Re:CAn the government do anything against business (Score:1)
Re:Get Over It? Maybe, Maybe Not (Score:2)
Yes that's the exact point. The world is still full of hateful people who would discriminate against you if you were gay (god forbid you have aids). Maybe they can deny you housing, or a job. Maybe it's even worse and they decide to teach you a lesson for moving into their neighborhood. Don't kid yourself this is still a racist country.
Correction of Inconsistencies (Score:2)
From Richard Smith, with the University of Denver's Privacy Foundation: "I think they needed to come down harder in this case," Smith said. "I found (Amazon's response) kind of strange. They should have just changed their software to work how the privacy policy said it worked."
The FTC doesn't have a lot of room though anyway. The software in question (the comparison shopping service zBubbles) is now unused, and the privacy policy has been "corrected".
How they found it (Score:2)
for each address in list, send spam to address@domain
Or, they may have purchased the list of addresses from the ISP.
Are we still boycotting amazon? (Score:1)
Amazon, for silly patents and now this...
Re: (Score:2)
exhausted ramblings (Score:5)
Hopefully common sense will one day prevail when it comes to people purchasing things online, and when using programs created by those companies you've made the purchases from.
When one goes to buy things online, your often going to see something like a radio button asking whether you want something in the future, or would like to subscribe to, or other option, and this is no different then when you go into department stores, and the cashier asks if you'd like to sign up for another credit card, or would like to receive X_OTHER information via mail, etc.
Marketing companies, and marketing departments try to use the data for obvious reasons, to sell you more products, but at times they also use that data to try to predict trends in what to sell next, or what to add. However the differences when you buy online, and in person is, in person you can look someone dead in the eye and say no, but on the net you really have little control.
Spyware programs which claim never to use people information for the company's personal gain are almost always a sham, and I feel this way after working with a company who developed a product they claimed wasn't spyware, but yet tracked when the user logged in with the program, what the person purchsed, etc., when I asked my bosses about it, it was amusing to see the obscurity they placed behind tracking information.
Lets be realistic here, using a program by a company which sells goods, is going to by some means monitor something, and you should be aware that no matter what is said, that information can be tracked to you no matter what the company says, either by a username, trends in shopping, or even IP addresses, and that's the bottom line any way you slice it. How else do you expect them to make money?
On a side note, after sleeping 3 hours within the past 48, I wonder if I make any sense!@
Re:Microsoft != Amazon (Score:4)
I don't want to sound pro-Microsoft (I'm not) but the reality is that as a near monopolist in several areas of software, the second largest employer in Washington State, and (need I mention) a generous campaign contributor, the Fed will walk on eggs when coming up with any remedies to control Our Friends In Redmond.
Once you get past the breathless hype of the New Economy, Amazon is expendable. Jeff Bezos could be swatted out of existence, and the loss of every single job at Amazon would result in a small change in the unemplyment rate of Greater Seattle, and a zero change in any meaningful national economic statistics related to employment, GDP, the value of the NASDAQ, or any other indicator you care to fish up.
Who knows, without an Amazon.com to surf to, office productivity might even rise a few ticks.
Attachmate (a privately-held middish-to-big Seattle software firm you've probably never heard of) puts more money into the economy than Amazon.
The FTCs lack of action does not indicate the goverment does not have the means. They certainly do. They just don't have the desire.
cynically yrs,
j.
Get Over It? Maybe, Maybe Not (Score:2)
Scenario: You are in an accident. Medic checks your medical history. Finds out that you will die if given some injection of some chemical. Medic gives you another injection instead. You give up your privacy. You live.
The idea is that we need to be willing to give up our privacy to right people at the right time. The government knows a ton about you. The government is run by people. Therefore, other people still know a lot about you, even if you hide shit from companies.
I have an interesting aside. I have a friend who talks openly about all the porn he views each day. He is married and has kids. This shocks me. However, he is now home free. No person can ever really blackmail him about the pornography his views every day. He tells the world what he does and the world can't kick his ass. He has not a drip of fear... This is an interesting philosophy. It is a kick ass pre-emptive strike. I think it sort of relates here.
What are we all hiding? Who gives a shit? Oh right, if people know you have a medical condition or that you are gay or that you have used drugs, then they can discriminate against you. What a tangled web we weave.
In Association With (Score:2)
Dammit, Amazon is the best candidate for helping me earn money from my pet website. I don't really want to ask people for donations - seems like asking for something for nothing, and it's still a pain getting small transactions.
But it's obvious Amazon is going to behave less and less ethically before it finally starts making a profit or goes down the gurgler. Even worse, it's pointless crap like marketing data which is not going to save them, just piss lots pf people off. It's getting to the point where I'm ashamed to have their logo on my site - guess it'll be back to the old drawing board.
Re:CAn the government do anything against business (Score:1)
CAn the government do anything against businesses? (Score:2)
Obligatory Monty Python quote (Score:3)
Sorry. Gut response. You know how it goes.
TomatoMan
Semi-related (Score:2)
-Legion
Re:Privacy Policies are now laughable (Score:1)
Re:CAn the government do anything against business (Score:1)
Look at the suits running amazon an dthe suits in Washinton (DC, not Seattle:-)). Which is more likely to act against your best interests...
I don't like Amazon's business practices so I don't deal with them anymore. I went from spending 1000+ quid one year to nothing from then on. That's not going to make anyone at their head office lose sleep unless enough others did the same of course, but more important is that the 1000 qid now goes to people who are less obnoxious (Books Online mostly, so if someone can tell me why they are evil too my bank manager would be very grateful:-)).
_O_
Alexa just *lost* a class-action suit on this (Score:2)
There has been preliminary approval of a settlement. The court is scheduled to hold a "fairness hearing" on 27 July 2001. It looks like Alexa will lose a couple million dollars. Is this enough to deter others from trying such tricks?
It's different because.... (Score:3)
It's different because Amazon was violating their own privacy policy. They stated clearly that they would aggregate the information and not use it to identify individual customers. They lied. They were reprimanded by the FTC for being deceptive, not for being intrusive.
Re:CAn the government do anything against business (Score:1)
Privacy (Score:1)
License your info (Score:2)
You have to give your private info to these companies, but you want to control how they use it. Does anyone else find this familiar? Isn't it just what software licenses and EULAs do? Why not take a page from their book and license your private information.
When you place an order, specify that you are providing this information in accordance with your Information License (provide a URL) and accepting your offer constitutes acceptance of the license. Then you control what the policy is. If they have a problem accepting it, they can email you and talk it over or whatever. It might be worth trying.
I know that licenses like this may not stand up in court, but that doesn't stop software companies from using them or people from honoring them. If anything, a customer's license is likely to have more standing, because the customer's hands are more tied. It's probably worth trying.
Anyone want to help this project out? Help work out a standard license to use for this? Drop me a line, this could be cool.
Re:Obligatory Monty Python quote (Score:1)
Togh Call ? (Score:1)
It seems that as long as you are a corporation in America you can get away with just about everything short of murder.
I don't really want to stretch the EU is great type of argument. But when Volkswagen for example violated EU laws, by threatening their Italian dealers to yank their franchises if they sold (cheaper) to German and Swiss customers they where fined dozens of millions Euros for that. Same happened to Tetra Pack a decade ago for abusive monoplistic practices. Oh yes, and they payed up too.
The disregard for the rights of the individuals in the US is frightening. And when such an industry comes around with the self policing party line, they have about the credibility of Joseph Stalin preaching human right.
Re:Privacy Policies are now laughable (Score:1)
Well, of course the situation is very different if you clicked on one of those infamous Micro-show-us-the-money-soft EULAs.
Re:trust no one (Score:1)
That as such is not that bad, if there would have been an option for those signing up with the old rules to have their data removed.
The right question to ask... (Score:1)
The more important question to ask, is :
How do you feel if that medic sells your information to your insurance company, which in turn either doesn't renew your policy, or jacks up your premiums 15 fold?
Or (granted, this is far-fetched right now), how about two government thugs, trampling in your door and pulling you away from your loved ones to [insert-transmittable-desease]-camp, based on (potentially false) medical information?
Re:Tough Call ? (Score:1)
I fear, that this only holds up in theory. One of the things that really bug me (and that's a worldwide issue with corporations), is that corporate management is not really held responsible, nowadays. You don't really have personalities anymore; personalities like Bill Hewlett, Dave Packard, Henry T Ford, Kenneth Olson, or even Thomas J Watson. Founders and enterpreneurs, visionaries that actually cared about their people, their community and society (not that they are above dirty tricks in all instances).
In todays modern world you have marketing-slicked-mba-steeled-ruthlesness on the search for the fast buck, without having a horizon any further then the quarterly report, or the stock price.
Of course there are exceptions, but they are rare and few.
It's partially worse then that. Remember companies like United Fruit, who where directly responsible for the deaths of 1000s of indios, to pursue their fucking banana growing interests. They wisely changed their name to United Brands (Chiquita) and are probably soon to be extinct.
Or remember Chile 1973, where the CIA gracefully assisted in the murder of a democratically elected, albeit rather darkpink president. Being responsible for Mr. Pinochet and his reign of terror, murder and torture. All in the interest of Americas finest corporations.
Well yeah, I'd extend that to the whole world. But guess what: We - the consumer - can make a great start! We can cease buying from companies that behave unethical. The problem is that people are so fucking lazy and ignorant.
Deceiving Customers (Score:5)
Kinda like us Slashdot posters deceiving other readers into thinking we actually READ the articles?
Heh.
krystal_blade
A Question of Protocol... (Score:3)
Please answer, as I am a bit confused.... And I am vastly concerned with categorizing the many people that screw me over through the day so I really need to figure out which category I should check this off in before I go to bed.
Could This Be Used To Competitive Advantage (Score:2)
I wonder why it is that no bright entrepeneur has come up with the concept of using guaranteed privacy as a way to lure customers to their website. I mean given the choice between Amazon.com (which has already demonstrated a tendency to play fast and loose with the truth when it comes to users' privacy) and some other website which went out of its way to protect my privacy, I'd choose the latter. I know it would take a while for people to be convinced that "PrivacyUberAlles.Com" is really not going to violate people's privacy. However even before people are convinced a smart marketer should be able to play up an ironclad privacy policy to the advantage of the website. I'd even be willing to pay a little premium (as I suspect many people would) to have a better guarantee of privacy.
Onorio Catenacci
--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."
Re:Privacy Policies are now laughable (Score:2)
But first you must read their Conditions of Use:
DISPUTES
Any dispute relating in any way to your visit to Amazon.com or to products you purchase through Amazon.com shall be submitted to confidential arbitration in Seattle, Washington, except that, to the extent you have in any manner violated or threatened to violate Amazon.com's intellectual property rights, Amazon.com may seek injunctive or other appropriate relief in any state or federal court in the state of Washington, and you consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in such courts. Arbitration under this agreement shall be conducted under the rules then prevailing of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrator's award shall be binding and may be entered as a judgment in any court of competent jurisdiction. To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, no arbitration under this Agreement shall be joined to an arbitration involving any other party subject to this Agreement, whether through class arbitration proceedings or otherwise.
In other words, if you feel that Amazon wronged you, you agree to their form of arbitration. You can't sue them. If they feel you've wronged them, they can sue you. In addition, no class-action lawsuits allowed.Re:Privacy Policies are now laughable (Score:2)
---
Re:Privacy Policies are now laughable (Score:5)
--CTH
yeah right! (Score:1)
'Reports indicate that the phrase "All your atom are belong to us" was heard shortly before the blinding flash occured'
Re:trust no one (Score:1)
Point 2 is a little more specific. If they transfer a section of business the associated customer data goes with it, which is fairly standard practice. Let's say they believe the RIAA lies that MP3s have killed CD sales and think that their profits are going to disappear, so decide to get out of that market sector. The company they sell the CD business to would almost certainly want, and get, the customer details of Amazon's (and now their) customers who had bought CDs.
Of course, what a company claims to transfer and what actually gets transferred are not necessarily the same thing. It's also very rare to see the two companies do the right thing ethically and give the customers the option of having their details removed before the transfer takes place.
Re:Togh Call ? (Score:1)
If a corporation through careless action or by soulless disregard ruins the lives of its workers or townsfolk, they often face a small fine. If a CEO ordered the criminal action, that CEO will only suffer whatever fate his shareholders might deem or what his fellow executives decide. In corporations like the tobacco industry, the executives could care little if people die from the use of their product.
The only dawn I see on this nightmare of corporate-monarchy is that for now the common person can purchase stock and have a meager say in policy. Otherwise it looks very bleak as corporations gain exclusion from lawsuits, answering to the customers, or any checks & balances which make America worthwhile. The megacorps are immune from the regulations of any country and have bought the lawmakers to the dismay of their customers. They define the objectivity of news to promote their agenda and have inverted the concept of objectivity.
The corporations are now the monarchy. We are merely disposable commodities. Serfs to their whims. The news channels are their church and state. The law bends to their fancy. If we don't like it; it is a futile anger. We can rattle our prison bars in rage, but we have little hope of escape unless we all wake up.
HARK! WAIT! We are not yet completely submersed I think. We are only powerless if we remain silent and hopeless. The corporations are monoliths which we can scarcely dent. However, we still all remain mortal. We need not take up arms and slay the oppressors when we can disobey. To be enslaved is to agree to be enslaved. We still have many avenues to rebel within. That is America. If all checks and balances fail within the civil system we still have the primitive methods available. Do not allow the corporations to place their whores within the offices of our government. Do not allow apathy to ruin our nation. Refuse, Resist, & Do Not Allow Yourself to be Enslaved.
changing the agreement... (Score:3)
Amazon Stores (Score:1)
Wroot
Does Trust matter to corps any more? (Score:3)
Of course not!
Amazon will continue to dirty practices as long as they can make more money that way. But in the mean time they ruin it for others. I will opt-out of every mailing list because companies will not respect your inbox. They don't care if they bug you with too much email for a "low traffic email list". Now they will try to stop you unsubscribing ("it may take up to two weeks to process your request" bullshit).
Let's see some laws to protect people. How about a minium "one working day" unsubscribe response time? How about verifying that you want to be on the list in the first place?
The bottom line is that companies don't care about winning your trust (or anything else that doesn't directly involve parting you and your money).
Maybe the dot com crash will spur companies to return to a more people based mind set.
HA! I can dream.... thank you for reading my whinning.
--
Re:CAn the government do anything against business (Score:1)
Re:I wouldn't say they were "cited" (Score:5)
In grocery store discount cards, you are selling your privacy. You choose to let them track what you buy, when, in what quantities, with what other products, etc. in return for savings.
The stores are required by law to say what they are going to do. It's in the fine print of the application -- just most people don't read the fine print, or understand what it means.
Amazon, however collected information "secretly", without the consent of the customers and offering no such savings in return for such consent.
--------------------------------
amazon and Star Wars (Score:2)
Re:Here's an idea (Score:1)
just try getting off their list
Get a 'temporary' email address, change your email address in your Amazon preferences, delete temporary email address, wipe cookies.
Of course, this only applies if you don't actually want to shop at Amazon any more.
Re:off tpoic but... (Score:1)
Whether the article is true or whether it was bought, you still somehow seem to have missed the point of the slashdot posts. I can only presume you haven't even read them. Slashdot does not, as you seem to think, have a "promote music piracy" agenda. There are many other more relevant, important arguments to this issue, which I won't discuss here, partially because its entirely offtopic, and partially because the points have already been made by hundreds of other people in other slashdot threads where it was on-topic. Go read them.
Get over it? (Score:2)
Or how about the Japanese internment camps in the United States. Teachers that get fired because they are gay. People that get fired because they are not Christian.
When people stop discriminating, and enforcing their moral code on others, then we can start talking about a utopia where people can just be themselves, and exist in society. Till then, any idea that people dont need to hide anything is just a pipe dream.
The question is who do you trust with your information. I do not trust any government with that information. Nor do I trust corporations, although, since they are usually just looking to scam me, it is relatively harmless (now).
Yes, there are times and places where information is useful. (if it were not, it would not be information, but random data) But in that same scenario, that person who is healing you does not need to know your religion, your sexual preference, your surfing habits, the clubs you frequent, or your political party. Neither (for instance) does the persons boss. The information is not necessary, and if used, will most likely not be used to the benefit of the subject of the information.
Information has, in the past, been used for malevolent or selfish purposes. In the present it is being used for malevolent or selfish purposes. I do not believe that this will change.
-CrackElf
Re:amazon and Star Wars (Score:1)
Re:Get Over It? Maybe, Maybe Not (Score:1)
Scenario: You are in an accident. Medic checks your medical history. Finds out that you will die if given some injection of some chemical. Medic gives you another injection instead. You give up your privacy. You live.
don't be an idiot. There's a difference between allowing people access to my medical records based on actual need and people tracking me and selling the data for a profit.
How would you like it if that medic sold your coedine allergy to Bayer, who turned around and flooded your mailslot with ads for Coedine free painkillers?
Disagree (Score:1)
Dear Amazon Customer (Score:1)
Not only were we stupid to do the price adjustments, we're really sorry about patenting the mouse click. We were just kidding about that one. As soon as we run out of vulture capital, we will close our doors, shutdown our website, and donate the patent on the mouse click to the FSF.
Sincerly,
Jeff Bezos
The ubiquitous 'Opt Out Clause' (Score:1)
...at least until they become incovenient and I can then happily change them at whim, or ignore them and pretend they never happened.
But if anyone else breaks those rules and disadvantages me...
trust no one (Score:4)
from amazon's privacy terms
Information about our customers is an important part of our business, and we are not in the business of selling it to others.
As we continue to develop our business, we might sell or buy stores or assets. In such transactions, customer information generally is one of the transferred business assets
?WTF?
*this is not a guarantee
Re:CAn the government do anything against business (Score:1)