{"id":3173,"date":"2001-09-04T15:01:13","date_gmt":"2001-09-04T20:01:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/smperformance.wordpress.com\/2013\/08\/03\/stratvantage-consulting-llc-mikes-take-on-the-news-090401-2\/"},"modified":"2001-09-04T15:01:13","modified_gmt":"2001-09-04T20:01:13","slug":"stratvantage-consulting-llc-mikes-take-on-the-news-090401-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stratvantage.com\/index.php\/2001\/09\/04\/stratvantage-consulting-llc-mikes-take-on-the-news-090401-2\/","title":{"rendered":"StratVantage Consulting, LLC — Mike’s Take on the News 09\/04\/01"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n
\n

From Evernote:<\/a><\/h3>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

StratVantage Consulting, LLC — Mike’s Take on the News 09\/04\/01<\/h1>\n

Clipped from: http:\/\/www.stratvantage.com\/news\/091001.htm<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n

T<\/strong>he News \u2013 09\/10\/01<\/h1>\n

In this Issue:<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Right to Privacy?<\/strong> <\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Recently, in a discussion group I participate in, someone asked, \u201cWhat happened to our right to privacy?<\/strong>\u201d He was appalled at a recent judicial decision that, he claimed, stated \u201cthat phone calls you place and take in your own home cannot be considered private.<\/strong>\u201d<\/p>\n

While I certainly agree with the sentiment, I must point out that there\u2019s nothing in the Constitution that guarantees privacy.<\/strong> The <\/a>4th Amendment <\/a> guarantees citizens\u2019 security of \u201cpersons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,\u201d but doesn\u2019t guarantee privacy.<\/strong> In fact, the word doesn\u2019t appear anywhere in the Constitution or the amendments.<\/strong><\/p>\n

There are some laws on the books regarding privacy, however, but most only concern the federal government.<\/strong> In 1998 the White House issued a memorandum on Privacy and Personal Information in Federal Records, saying: \u201cPrivacy is a cherished American value, closely linked to our concepts of personal freedom and well-being.<\/strong> At the same time, fundamental principles such as those underlying the First Amendment, perhaps the most important hallmark of American democracy, protect the free flow of information in our society.<\/strong>\u201d The memorandum directs Federal agency heads to \u201cassure that their use of new information technologies sustain, and do not erode, the protections provided in all statutes relating to agency use, collection, and disclosure of personal information,\u201d and that they follow the Privacy Act of 1974.<\/strong> One wonders why it was necessary to direct government agencies to obey the law!<\/strong><\/p>\n

There is one bill, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act <\/a>, enacted in late 1999 with a compliance date of July of this year, that does regulate what financial institutions can do with non-public information about you.<\/strong> It\u2019s because of this law that you\u2019ve been receiving the privacy policies of the various financial institutions in your life.<\/strong> These institutions must, \u201cProvide an opt-out notice, with the initial notice or separately, prior to a financial institution sharing nonpublic personal information with nonaffiliated third parties.<\/strong>\u201d So now\u2019s your chance to opt out.<\/p>\n

Also this year, the privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 <\/a> became effective, with a compliance date of April 14, 2003.<\/strong> The original 1996 law gave Congress until August 21, 1999, to pass comprehensive health privacy legislation.<\/strong> When Congress did not enact such legislation after three years, the law required the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to craft such protections by regulation.<\/strong> The regulations basically protect your health information from being disclosed without your consent.<\/strong> However, since medical establishments share information all the time in the process of caring for you, this gets a bit sticky.<\/strong> The rules are expected to cost $17.6 billion over 10 years to implement, while generating significant offsetting savings.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Despite some recent advances, and despite the cherished nature of privacy, there are few rules is binding on non-financial or non-health institutions.<\/strong> Private citizens really have no right to privacy in other arenas.<\/strong> Sure there\u2019s a lot of talk about privacy, and about the EU privacy rules, but, as you can see from Congress\u2019 HIPAA foot dragging, our government really has little interest in proactively enacting laws to protect our privacy from non-governmental entities.<\/strong> The FTC has created the elements of fair information practices (notice, choice, access, security, and contact), but there\u2019s no enforcement mechanism.<\/strong> There\u2019s a lot of interest in trading in online information (failed dot-coms trying to sell client lists), but these challenges tend to stand on the concept of the contractual nature of a site\u2019s voluntary privacy policy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sun CEO Scott McNealy said a couple of years ago, \u201cYou have no privacy.<\/strong> Get over it.\u201d Is this our fate? Must we stand by while private companies amass tremendous databases of information (don\u2019t get me started on Microsoft\u2019s Passport!<\/strong>) on us? Or should we make our elected representatives aware that we\u2019d just as soon keep our private matters private?<\/strong> Will it take being turned down for a job because you have a genetic predisposition to cancer to bring the point home?<\/strong> And while we\u2019re at it, as marketers, what is our responsibility to refrain from infringing on privacy?<\/strong> We need answers to these questions soon, IMHO. I\u2019m interested in your thoughts on these matters. Send them in and I\u2019ll publish them in a future SNS.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Privacy Backgrounder <\/a><\/p>\n

Briefly Noted<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n