One thing is clear: When we discuss privacy, we’re talking only about the collection and use of data
Confused about privacy, even after reading our big section on the subject last issue? Join the club. It’s hard to get a clear idea about where things really stand.
For example, is telemarketing a privacy violation? Some would say yes, because an outbound caller does sort of invade the home. But in terms of the current debate, telemarketing is more of an irritant.
Is spam really a privacy violation? Not really — it’s an annoyance. The people who run MAPS aren’t putting spammers on the RBL because they’re concerned about privacy; they’re worried about online volume, and the economic damage that results when company systems are shut down by millions of e-mails — or so they say.
So it’s clear: When we discuss “privacy,” we’re talking only about the collection and use of data. But even that raises questions. What is the responsible position — at least in editorials — when an outrage occurs?
I started covering the direct marketing beat in 1981, and the first big privacy flap I remember came in 1984, when a compiler rented names to the IRS for use in catching tax cheats. My attitude then — and it was shared by many in the industry — is that this was motivated by greed. Obviously, a company or a citizen has to help law enforcement when a crime has been committed, but the IRS was using this to conduct a fishing expedition — if you reported a $30,000 income and you lived in a $100,000-a-year neighborhood, they’d check out the discrepancy. It didn’t work. But it solidified an opinion I held for many years, and through many subsequent scandals: that this business was run by chiselers and scavengers.
Then I got to know some of the chiselers and scavengers, which is always dangerous for a reporter. I realized that most are fine people. And I decided that the privacy issue was a public relations problem — that DMers just didn’t know how to handle the media. At this point, I started focusing on the malpractice of my colleagues on mainstream periodicals — people like the former Business Week reporter Jeffrey Rothfeder, who wrote a book called “Privacy for Sale.” Rothfeder’s contribution to human understanding of this issue was accessing Dan Quayle’s credit record and describing the direct mail he found in the Rothfeder family mailbox.
But then I also began to see the limitations in that worldview as the episodes piled up: Stolen lists, misuse of data, use of prisoners to do telemarketing and data entry. How can you say that each one of these things is an anomaly?
It’s like the exchange in an old Damon Runyon story: “Well, well, well,” says one hustler, aiming to put the bite on another hustler.
“How many wells does it take to make a river?” the other one answers.
“One if it’s deep enough.”
And now? I could go on waffling like a politician, but there’s one small problem: Most politicians are not waffling on this issue. So hang on.
Network
