In the last three columns, I’ve been looking at the complexities of protecting client or prospect privacy (personally identifiable information or PII) in an interconnected world.
The problem is greatly complicated by the web of relationships that can develop in the world of marketing. The relationships can involve remote firms that have contracts with your marketing division or contracts with firms that are one or more levels removed from direct interaction with your organization. Worse still, some sites may even be run by rogue organizations which have never had any contractual links whatever with you or with any of your legitimate agents. These facts make it almost impossible to prevent PII from visitors interested in your products, services or programs from being spread to other institutions.
You are left with a distasteful duty to warn all applicants that you can control the use of their PII only when they enter data into forms directly under the control of your own staff or of firms which have contractual obligations to follow your privacy policy. Examine your privacy policies to see if you should include explicit warnings that they apply only to your clients and not to people asking for information. It may make sense also to include a warning about the impossibility of your controlling privacy policies on Web sites outside your own domain.
In terms of response to complaints, you will have to continue being prepared to respond, basically, “Caveat emptor” (buyer beware). You can prepare general texts regretting (and repudiating) the impression that your organization has violated any privacy policy and explaining that anyone entering data on any Web site would do well to examine the local privacy policy for clarification of what degree of protection is offered for PII. If the privacy terms seem too loose, privacy-conscious individuals may decide to skip using those Web sites; instead, they can look for safer, more trustworthy alternatives that provide the same access to the desired information.
As mentioned above, an additional and probably intractable problem is that not everyone who uses your name and your logo necessarily has any business relationship with your organization at all. Phishing (using fake e-mail that looks like legitimate messages from well-known organizations) and pharming (using fake Web pages that look like legitimate Web sites belonging to well-known organizations), for example, are based on impersonation of business entities.
Someone could easily use your organization’s name and logo on a form claiming to be related to providing information about your organization, products, services or programs – and then simply use the collected PII for their own purposes. Failure to send the victim the requested information reflects badly on your perfectly innocent and unknowing organization; selling the PII to spammers makes you look terrible. And what are you going to do about it?
If someone is abusing your trademark or your servicemark, you can sue them for misappropriation – if you can find them. With fraudulent Web sites appearing and disappearing with lifetimes measured in hours or days, it is going to be hard to locate the criminals who are ruining your reputation.
Latest on Privacy
- Facebook simplifies privacy settings, calls them too complex
- CDT: New privacy law getting closer
- Italian court postpones trial of four Google execs
- US lawmakers call for online ad privacy rules
- T-Mobile data was not taken by hacking, company says
- T-Mobile confirms stolen data is genuine
- Hard drive missing from US National Archives
- ISPs need more oversight and regulation
- Personal accounts, smart forms coming to Australia.gov.au
- Govt agencies losing portable data: Privacy Commissioner
Security Essentials
- Good security in recessionary times
- Security ROI: Fact or Fiction?
- NetWitness releases free version of security software
- Study: critical infrastructure often under cyberattack
- Crooks can make $5M a year shilling fake security software
- Sun exec: IT security should follow business needs
- Clumsy staff more dangerous than hackers: survey
- When the watchdog is the underdog
- Mafiaboy grows up; a hacker seeks redemption
- Ouch! Security pros' worst mistakes
TechWorld Jobs (beta)
Recent Jobs
TechWorld Blogs
-

TalkingTech
The view from the top of IT with TechWorld Editor Rodney Gedda
-

Entrenched
Cooking up better code, IDG's developers reveal some of their secrets
-

Broadband Voice
Darren Pauli digs in from the front line of Australia's broadband battleground
Recent blog posts
- Nokia remains 'open' to Android amid Symbian renaissance
- KDE's Seigo gives sneak peek at version 4.3
- Was the iPhone 3G S worth queuing up for?
- Has Oracle started its mammoth technology consolidation?
- iPhone 3.0: the detail is the process, not the features
- TechWorld.com.au goes mobile
- Should Dell buy Palm? Stranger things have happened
- A big week for Linux: is user friendliness finally in sight?
- Apple, Android rain on Palm's Pre parade
- The clone attack is becoming unstoppable
Recent comments
- State your Prediction and
16 hours 15 min ago - Yes I have seen them.Actually
17 hours 7 min ago - PSP Nintendo
1 day 8 hours ago - Interesting report. You were
2 days 4 hours ago - Are you sure it is in Sydney?
2 days 15 hours ago - The mobile market has
2 days 23 hours ago - Great news.
Sms spam should
3 days 20 hours ago - now what am I gonna do with
3 days 23 hours ago - ozlotteries.com not ozlotto.cm
4 days 50 min ago - OLAT Release
4 days 11 hours ago - and i was sure i would win...
4 days 15 hours ago - Hi SolidRadicle,
I am looking
4 days 15 hours ago - Not if I can help it
4 days 15 hours ago - Ozlotto Tips Scam
4 days 20 hours ago - Great post.
It's very
4 days 20 hours ago - Excellent review! I'm glad
6 days 17 hours ago - iTunes Helper
1 week 2 days ago - Update the link to OrangeHRM web site
1 week 2 days ago - Very informative article
1 week 3 days ago - Google Chrome is still being directed to bing instead of google
1 week 3 days ago










Comments
Post new comment