|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
DM News
Editorial Offices
100 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10013
Sept 2, 1998
Re: Letter to the Editor, DM News
A poor argument supports the opposition’s point. This is the case regarding Solveig Singleton’s article published in the August 24, 1998 issue of DM News (‘Can You Trust the Ministry of Privacy’).
She termed Vice President Al Gore’s statements; “You should have the right to choose whether your personal information is disclosed; you should have the right to know how much of that information is being used” and that he wants to “stop direct marketing companies and telemarketers from using personal information” as an intellectually bankrupt attack on freedom of information.
Ms. Singleton goes on to argue, “Once we give our information to somebody, it isn’t ours to control anymore…”, Of course, this is assured in the realm of direct marketing; where personal information is seen as a commodity, and privacy is viewed as an inconvenience.
She compares the privacy expectations of a retailer that spends millions to advertise every commodity associated to it, with the privacy expectations of a private citizen who happened to make a purchase there. Her conclusion is that, somehow they are equivalent.
In an effort to support ‘Freedom of Information’ Ms. Singleton conjures the image of Greyhounds on Death Row; too old to race. Capitalizing on this pitiful circumstance, she suggests these animals may die if a list owner had to contact each person on a list for permission, before their name could be sold to a ‘Hounding for Hounds’ fundraiser.
Notwithstanding her ‘Bambi-speak’ argument against privacy, there is an equitable way to sell personal information efficiently. Just ask data subjects to give their affirmative and knowing (not negative option) consent at the time their data is collected. Thus, traded marketing lists will hold the names of only those who consent. I assume this reasonable method for collecting personal data is avoided by info brokers due to the Industry’s sense that data subjects would generally elect to prevent their personal data from being traded.
Indeed, a survey published in Direct Magazine (June 1996) revealed that 83% of survey participants said there should be a law requiring an opt-in procedure to be included on mailing lists and 78% would be for such a law, even if it meant they would not get new mailings.
If Ms. Singleton hopes to keep government from hobbling Freedom of Information, she should demand that direct marketers stop abusing our Right of Privacy. This nation was not founded to protect business enterprises over the rights of citizens.
In the meantime, I look forward to reading her published opinions. They
highlight the vaporous nature of such arguments against the right of privacy.
Robert Bulmash, President
Private Citizen, Inc.