Mark Kolier’s Blog

Archive for the ‘Personal Privacy’ Category

The old saying that ‘information is power’ is true, except when it’s the wrong information. Among other things social networking allows communication to large numbers of people by one single individual. A very cool feature indeed but with that comes a responsibility (at least as far as I am concerned) that the personal information posted about other people is correct.

Last week I received a message from a friend noting that there was some less than flattering buzz going around on Facebook regarding something my wife was being accused of doing (she didn’t). Apparently someone we do not know had been ‘wronged’ and tracked the wrongdoer to a physical address – in fact the address where we used to live, having moved out three months ago. The affronted party got the home address from the police and checked it in a reverse lookup. Of course we were still listed as living at our old address as records are not always updated promptly – no surprise there. It went downhill from
there.

Thinking that the offending party had been found out this person went on a social network and began to post a vitriolic rant on how my wife was a terrible and horrible person and that the police were involved. Naturally my wonderful wife was shocked and had no idea what was going on – at least not at first. By piecing things together she was finally able to figure out what took place.

My wife tracked down and contacted the person who had been posting the incorrect information. She received a lukewarm apology but without any or at least enough contrition.
You’d think that a person would be horrified at erroneously accusing an innocent person of wrongdoing in a public forum like a social network. But the idea of going public in the first place to embarrass someone due to a personal grudge is unfortunately not all that uncommon these days.

What I am suggesting is that if you are going to go the route of publicly calling out someone for wrongdoing in a social network or other public forum – AT LEAST GET IT RIGHT! But in my opinion better if you don’t do it at all and approach the person one to one first. If then you are not satisfied and want to go public – do it at your own risk.

New York’s Governor Andrea Cuomo is the son of one of the more popular and liberal governors the state of New York has ever known. In his brief time in office Governor Cuomo has shown that the apple does not fall far from the tree. I always thought his father was a bright and interesting man and a pretty good governor. While I don’t live in New York State anymore (I do maintain an office in New York City) I remain interested and aware of New York issues and politics.

This past Monday Governor Cuomo signed an executive order banning smoking on Metro-North and Long Island Railroad platforms. The ban begins in 90 days. Full disclosure – I do not smoke cigarettes but do enjoy the occasional cigar. I have never smoked a cigar on a train platform but now I am thinking about it.

I am not sure if there is a law against self-immolation but that might as well be included too. Where does this kind of thing stop? New York City Mayor Bloomberg has banned smoking in New York City parks. There’s no smoking at outdoor stadiums and no smoking in restaurants and bars. I still cannot understand how taxpaying establishments are subject to this particular law – if you don’t like smoke and you are an employee – don’t work there!

Yes there are valid arguments that smokers cause illness not only to themselves (and to a lesser degree those around them by way of secondhand smoke – the claim is that 2,500 New Yorkers die each year due to secondhand smoke), they also contribute to higher insurance rates for everyone else. I am not a scientist but am a bit skeptical regarding the impact of secondhand smoke which is somewhat inconclusive.

I don’t like secondhand smoke. I don’t know anyone that does. Yet in the same breath, (or wheeze?), I am concerned that America’s penchant for legislation in the name of the public good is getting out of hand. Smokers need to be sensitive to people around them and the people that I know who like to smoke are just that, at least from what I have experienced. The anti-smoking movement has become a crusade.

I remember when airplane passengers could smoke on the plane (and trains and buses too for that matter). That was not good and banning it was a good thing that made sense. In a restaurant why can’t there be an area where smokers can enjoy their dinner away from the non-smokers? And as far as bars go, if you own one and wish to allow patrons to smoke, I say fine, if you don’t like the secondhand smoke – go someplace else.

So where does it end? Will there be a time when people are not allowed to smoke in their apartments since there are other people in the building that could be affected by second hand smoke? Will there be smoker’s retreats where attendees can blissfully puff away without the feeling like social pariahs?
I admit I lean left on a number of social issues but on this one I am not on board.

Do you see this as a liberal vs. conservative issue? Or one of personal liberties?

Our team does advise companies on best practices when it comes to creating and sending email messages. We truly believe that respecting recipient’s wants, needs and desires is critical in maintaining email as a viable channel to promote offers, engagements and events.

I doubt I will get much of an argument that many companies do a poor job of communicating via email (something that I am working on with the several companies in China to which I am heading off to see tomorrow) as well as demonstrate best practices for email protocols.

So when a good one crosses my inbox it becomes particularly noticeable. I recently signed up for the Export Yellow Pages. This site provides our company with a listing via a partnership with the U.S. Department of Commerce. I really have no idea if we will generate any interesting leads or engagements via our listing but it was relatively easy to do but offered nothing to lose and a lot to gain.

Today I received an email from a firm called ExpertsBusiness Direct which I mistook for having something to do with Export Yellow Pages (maybe I need to wear glasses when reading my screen). Anyway it got me to read the text which I thought was very good:

Dear Mark,

Once in a while, business-to-business emails will be sent by ExpertBusiness Direct to introduce you to special offers, industry events, or invite you to participate in customer surveys where you have the opportunity to make your opinion count. This is an exclusive brand serving the Business-to-Business community.

No one wants or has time to be inundated with unwanted emails, so we have committed to making sure the emails we send are relevant and we hope, valuable to you. Typically, you will receive less than 3 emails per month – never consumer offers and always pertinent to you, your company and your business. ExpertBusiness Direct does not provide possession of your email address to sponsors or advertisers without your consent.

Before we begin sending you emails, I want to be certain that our emails are welcome. If you do not want to receive these types of emails in the future, click here:

If you choose not to remove your name at this time, you will always be provided an opportunity to unsubscribe from ExpertBusiness Direct on each and every offer we send – removing your name from our email database is always an instant click-away.

If you would like to receive business and career related offers from us, you do not have to do anything.

Thank you for your time,

Maria Bartell
Program Coordinator, Email Marketing

Many things are right about the text of the mail. Tone being a big one as well as respecting my wishes at all times. But there was a big problem. Once I realized it was not from the Export Yellow Pages I looked again and realized I have no relationship with this company. In reality this email was a come-on so that I could be sent email from a company that wishes to business with me. And yes I immediately unsubscribed. Shame on them. Too bad what was just the right message was so dead wrong.

I saw an article last week in the DM News http://bit.ly/euzIOK noting that two-thirds of “consumers oppose online behavioral tracking and targeted advertising based on it, according to a Gallup/USAToday poll conducted earlier this month. Consumers were surveyed about the subject days after the Federal Trade Commission recommended a “Do-Not-Track” policy that would allow Web browsers to opt out of all online tracking by third-parties.

Gallup found that 67% of consumers said advertisers should not be allowed to present ads based on their Internet use, while only 30% said marketers should be allowed to do so. Thirty-five percent said tracking by marketers is justified because it allows free access to websites, and 61% said free access was not worth the loss of privacy.

Ninety percent say they do not pay much attention to online ads, while 61% said they have noticed targeted ads based on websites they have previously visited.

Taking issue with the tone of the questions in the survey, Jerry Cerasale, SVP of government affairs at the Direct Marketing Association, said the results pose a challenge for marketers. They need to educate consumers about what behavioral targeting is, and its value, he said.

“The question starts with Do-Not-Track…The request itself gives a negative connotation,” he said. “We look at it as an educational challenge.”

The poll also found that consumers are willing to allow some tracking, as long as it is their choice. Although 37% of adults would allow no tracking at all, 47% would allow tracking from advertisers they choose. The segments of consumers more amenable to opt-in tracking are younger and wealthier, according to the poll. More than half (57%) of adults ages 18 to 34 would allow tracking by selected advertisers, while 53% of those with annual incomes of $30,000 to $74,999 would do so” Gallup surveyed just over 1,000 consumers December 10th – 12th.

I agree with Mr. Cerasale’s point that the questions itself is a loaded one. When the discussion is about on line tracking that feels creepy. However, and I have been harping on this for a long time, when the discussion is about marketing relevancy and how behavioral targeting will save consumers time the conversation is entirely different.

Those with unlimited time can beg to differ but until there is evidence that 3rd party advertisers have individual consumer information and are using it in a personal way I will remain convinced that serving me relevant ads beats my being served feminine hygiene product ads and my daughter being served ads for Cialis and Viagra.

And you?

Articles this week in the Wall Street Journal http://on.wsj.com/aMR2bD and the New York Times http://nyti.ms/bLeAiA both covered the emergence of new technology that could be very useful while (to me) being extremely frightening at the same time. You can now think about owning your own personal drone. Ok maybe you have not given the idea much – or any – thought but the same might not be true of your neighbors.

Think about miniature flying drones ‘mounted with tiny cameras’ for the bargain price of $ 300 it was noted that personal drones would certainly not be welcomed by celebrities. The idea has generated the interest of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) which of course controls United States domestic airways. From the Journal article – ”The FAA doesn’t have explicit rules governing such uses, but Ms. Brown said an advisory that applies to pilotless drones recommends—but doesn’t require— that such aircraft be flown away from populated areas; away from regular airplanes; at an altitude below 400 feet; and that airports be notified if the craft is flying nearby. Mr. (attorney Raoul) Felder said the recreational exception could provide clever lawyers with an opening for use of the drones.”

”The ability to share software and hardware designs on the Internet has sped drone development”, said Christopher Anderson, founder of the website DIY Drones, a clearinghouse for the nearly 12,000 drone hobbyists around the world.

Let’s forget for a moment that there is a group of 12,000 drone hobbyists as I am having difficulty getting my tiny brain around that one. The military uses make total sense to me. But the idea of citizens having their own ‘personal drone’ to ‘keep an eye on things’ is (to me) a sure sign that the apocalypse is nearly here. The fact that they can only stay in the air 30 minutes at present is hardly a salve. For young Moms whose offspring are on that neighborhood play date things would never be the same. Once a kid comes home and says ‘Jimmy hit me’ and like Warner Wolf all Mom has to say is – ‘let’s go to the videotape!’ Or at least the digitally recorded files.

Mr. Felder, the divorce lawyer, said clever attorneys will find ways to get around FAA restrictions, perhaps by claiming their drones are for personal use—a distinction that should steer clear of FAA rules.
“This thing would be totally legal. There’s no violation of anybody’s premises,” he said. Thrilling.
Reassuringly the article in the Journal noted that Navy fighter pilot Missy Cummings predicted it’s just a matter of time before drone technology and safety improvements make the gadgets a common part of the urban landscape.

Privacy issues could emerge if such drones become common. While the military has rules of engagement governing drone use, there is no similar set of rules to protect privacy for domestic use of drones.
“If everybody had enough money to buy one of these things, we could all be wandering around with little networks of vehicles flying over our heads spying on us,” Ms. Cummings said. “It really opens up a whole new Pandora’s Box of: What does it mean to have privacy?” Of course there is the positive idea that personal drones would no doubt cut down on paparazzi car crashes since it would put a whole new spin on celebrity pursuits.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Are you as afraid of this technological leap as am I?