The New York Times The New York Times Business October 17, 2002  

Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
- Media & Advertising
- World Business
- Your Money
- Markets
- Company Research
- Mutual Funds
- Stock Portfolio
- Columns
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia/Photos
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version

Join Ameritrade. Get 25 commission-free trades.


Find More Low Fares! Experience Orbitz!


$7 Online Market Orders, 165 offices


Small Business Center: OPEN NetworkSM tools


Go to Advanced Search/Archive Go to Advanced Search/Archive Symbol Lookup
Search Optionsdivide
go to Member Center Log Out
  Welcome, malak

Consumers Face Tricky Maze in Guarding Privacy

By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Businesses, responding to lawmakers and consumers, say they are giving customers more ways than ever to control how their personal information is used and sold. But, in fact, many companies all but frustrate their customers' attempts to exercise that control.

Barbara Bechtold of Sacramento recounts the unending process of trying to keep companies from selling her e-mail address and the details of her credit card accounts, insurance policies and mortgage inquiries.

Advertisement


When she tried to tell Pacific Bell not to share information that some phone companies sell including calling habits she found herself confronted with a voice automation system maze.

"Push `1' for this, push `2' for this," she recalled. "Twenty different steps to say, `I don't want you to sell my information, please.' "

John Britton, a spokesman for Pacific Bell, a unit of SBC Communications, said the company tried to make the process simple and that it shared information only among affiliated companies and did not sell calling data to other companies.

Still, Ms. Bechtold said that most people, faced with too much twiddling and clicking, "will get disgusted and say, `Oh, forget it!' rather than try to get off those lists."

For some companies, that might be the point. Facing new laws in half a dozen states and the threat of legislation in other states and in Congress, businesses have claimed to give customers more control over the use of their personal information.

But these efforts are subject to abuse. Some online marketers, including some offering low, low mortgage rates, naughty pictures or seminars on dental office management, simply lie.

"You are receiving this e-mail because you opted-in by requesting information or requested to receive special offers from an online purchase," reads one message offering online marketing services spam to help people produce spam.

Did you really ask for the message? Probably not. But many online businesses claim you gave explicit permission to receive them.

Some states are taking on what they considerthe most blatant lies about whether a consumer gives permission to share or sell an e-mail address and other information. New York State has sued an online marketer, MonsterHut, over unsolicited e-mail messages, which MonsterHut insisted were sent with permission. A decision in the case is pending. Among more mainstream businesses, drafters of privacy policies have ways of confusing and frustrating customers.

Consumer privacy advocates have complained about the practices at Yahoo, where members who want to tell the company not to spread around their e-mail addresses and interests or to send them e-mail offers had to click through more than a dozen boxes that were checked to accept the mailings. And even after this time-consuming process, the company "may update this policy," according to the site.

"It's hard to imagine a greater exercise in futility," said Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington.

The company has said that it values the privacy of its customers and notifies them of any changes in its privacy or marketing policies.

At the Direct Marketing Association site (www.the-dma.org), consumers who want to remove their name from many junk mail lists find that they must sign up by mail, or spend $5 and provide a credit card number to accomplish the same task over the Internet. Putting one's name on a do-not-call list for telemarketers requires a second letter or $5 Internet payment. Louis Mastria, a spokesman for the organization, said the charge was "just to defray costs," not an attempt to deter consumers.

Janice Abrahams, a Web site designer who operates an Internet site (www.privacyparts.com) devoted to online privacy practices, recently gave up after weeks of trying to create a page that would identify online services by their privacy practices. "I feel like I've been nailing Jell-O to a tree with my head," she said.

What is going on at many Web sites is no mystery to Penn Gillette, the magician and former technology columnist for PC Computing Magazine, which is now defunct. The choice offered is no choice at all, he said, when the decision is gently coerced before or after the fact in what is known as a "force" or a "magician's choice." As a rule of thumb, when someone asks you to pick a card, any card, he said, "if the guy is wearing a top hat, he's not giving you a real choice."

Continued
1 | 2 | Next>>




Look Who's Listening; The C.I.A. Widens Its Domestic Reach  (January 20, 2002)  $

A NATION CHALLENGED: THE LEGISLATION; Privacy Debate Focuses on F.B.I. Use of an Internet Wiretap  (October 13, 2001)  $

Ads on Cell Phones (And You Thought You Had Escaped)  (September 28, 2000)  $

PROPOSAL OFFERS SURVEILLANCE RULES FOR THE INTERNET  (July 18, 2000)  $



Doing research? Search the archive for more than 500,000 articles:




E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints
Single-Page View

Click Here to Receive 50% Off Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper.


Home | Back to Business | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

Copyright The New York Times Company | Permissions | Privacy Policy
E-Mail This Article
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
Reprints
Single-Page View

Recent Articles

E-Commerce Report: Clash of Internet Privacy Policies (October 14, 2002)


Easy Access to Public Records Online Raises Privacy Questions (October 13, 2002)



Topics

 Alerts
Privacy
Law and Legislation
Electronic Mail
Federal Communications Commission
Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour
Sign Up for Newsletters






Spend Your Time on Projections, Not Calculations

Downloadable Spreadsheets Available Here






Click Here!




News & Features

Property Listings: Sales | Leases

Search by Keyword
List Your Property
Property E-Mail Alerts
Building Photo Guide