posted on December 5, 2000 07:55:33 AM
"Amazon revised its privacy policy in August, telling customers it now considers information it has about them a company asset to be sold should the online retailer go out of business or sell a division.
"Customer details that Amazon.com says it feels salable include names, shipping and billing addresses, credit card numbers, e-mail addresses, employers, gift wish lists, Social Security numbers and photographs of customers who have taken advantage of personalization features.
"With the policy change, Amazon also stopped letting customers decline to have their data shared with other retailers."
I am used to the fact that my name and address is being bought and sold, regularly, but *my* credit card numbers, too? How can they get away with that?
posted on December 5, 2000 09:07:49 AM
I am NOT boycotting although I respect the fact that some people have privacy issues with their policy.
To me Amazon is a venue nothing more. If I don't like the rules of the venue or the way they run their business I just don't use it. Simple as that.
I fully intend to continue using them to sell and buy.
However one small comment about the title, Amazon.com is an IT, a website and not a dimunitive "girl" and definitely not a "bad girl". Bad policy maybe not a bad girl.
posted on December 5, 2000 09:35:19 AM
Ebay is in the minority of sites that do not ask for social security numbers of sellers. Half.com asks for your Social Security number, they will be issuing each seller who earns over the minimum a 1099 IRS form for their taxes for income earned at the end of the year, is my guess.
BTW, this info is bought and sold daily by direct marketing firms every business day but you knew that, right? How do you think you are targeted for junk mail?
I still want to use Amazon to sell. Also unless you SELL on Amazon why would you be giving them your social security number anyway? and if you sell there, Amazon has a legitimate need for it if they take the position they need to issue you a 1099 for your Marketplace sales there.
Edited to add: I realize the prospective employees give a company the right to do such investigations - but what's to stop anyone from seeking out such information?
[ edited by stockticker on Dec 5, 2000 09:42 AM ]
posted on December 5, 2000 09:56:08 AM
I only use Amazon as a merchant, not for auctions, so I don't know about the SS# issue.
As for privacy, I expect my name, address, and buying habits to be traded, sold, whatever...that I am used to.
BUT, you would think a customer's credit card number would be sacred, and the most important thing to protect, with so much fraud going on. What is the purpose of having a secure site, and touting that security, if you are going to sell your customer's credit card # anyway?
lousy grammar
[ edited by Julesy on Dec 5, 2000 09:57 AM ]
posted on December 5, 2000 10:00:02 AM
Come on, Enchanted. "Amazon is a very bad girl". It's a play on words. But you knew that, right? Please tell me you did.
posted on December 5, 2000 10:00:15 AM
Sounds pretty bad. Don't know if there's a formal boycott (beyond the gnu business, which was for other reasons), but thought I'd suggest it.
"Venue" is a semantic concoction by companies trying to skirt liability for their role in transactions. It has all the legal meaning of "Eunev," and it'd be nice to see consumers stop buying into the corporate doublespeak and holding these SOBs to account for their shenanigans. Re "Amazon," I doubt that the human beings who created Amazon.com would have chosen the name if they were trying to avoid an association with images of the pugilistic female. Further to the comment above, "girl" is "diminutive" only to those with reductive views of youth, and I'm not one of 'em. But inasmuch as the plaint validates the legitimacy of the female attribution to the firm, thank you kindly.
posted on December 5, 2000 11:22:21 AM
lswanson, yes I knew it was a play on words, as was my response to some extent, when I said "bad policy, but not a bad girl".
I've often seen or heard Amazon referred to as the "source" bringing in the reference to the Amazon river and the Amazonia jungle area of South America. I had always read and therefore believed that was the inspiration for the name and in fact recent advertising by competitor booksellers play on the jungle reference, not the classical myth reference of the female fighter.
Or perhaps both inspired the founders of Amazon. Ah well. So much for having alternate theories or discussing book sites. Perhaps I should take the issue to the Amazon section of AW.
Or perhaps I'm simply not as well informed as others on the origin of the Amazon.com name. Not enough edjumication?
enchanted
[email protected]
edited cause I left a preposition out
[ edited by enchanted on Dec 5, 2000 11:24 AM ]
posted on December 5, 2000 11:51:52 AMOK, I'll bite.
Is that what you e-mailed her, Pareau?
Irene
-----------------------
Irene,
I believe that my few emails--original, unaltered, unedited, and boring as hell--would stand the intimate scrutiny of the Pope himself. I have them all, should he care to review them. My crime, so far as I was ever able to figure it out, was failure to correspond, and play here, with the individual. That's all I did, or didn't do, and I've come to believe it's possible that that's all it took for that person to get pissed as all getout. Think about it, Irene: If a person literally can't tolerate being ignored, he/she will do something that forces attention upon them so they're viewed sympathetically, and will target the person who's doing the ignoring so they're viewed unsympathetically.
However, given all I've seen over the past year, I can't rule out other factors. One or another of the thugs who've operated successfully in the OAI for the past 18-plus-months could have involved him/her self in ensuring a surfeit of ill will all around, then sat back sneering at the anger and paranoia engendered by his/her actions. It's quite possible that that's what happened here, if my memory of the orginal (locked) thread serves me well.
Of course, it could have been those darned solar flares.
posted on December 5, 2000 12:09:39 PM
according to the federal privacy act, anyone requesting your ss# has to tell you how they intend to use it. if they tell you that it will be held in confidence, you give it to them, and then they change the terms, they would seem to be in obvious violation of the federal privacy act.
I think you're wrong. Anyone making a play for attention and sympathy would say why she was pissed off. She never did, at least not to me. I never asked though. I back away from anger. Frankly I have no idea how to interact with an angry person - I've always refused to in real life whenever the anger was directed at me - I just turned on my heel and walked away.
I suspect a communication problem - between what you attempted to communicate and how she perceived it.
I do think that considering how you know she feels, that it was in bad taste to direct her on this thread to a picture of a dead warrior.
posted on December 5, 2000 01:07:19 PM
Come on, Irene. First you say you think I'm wrong in my perceptions of how this person feels. Ergo, I don't know what the person feels, right? Then you say that, "considering how you know she feels, that it was in bad taste to direct her on this thread to a picture of a dead warrior." LOL, I can tell that free listing day is just hours away.
Since you've brought up "taste," I'll venture that it's in markedly bad taste to issue a blanket public accusation of wrongdoing that many take to be directed to a specific individual, then to run tail when called on it. It's worse form to support that behavior, or to cover for it, which was what happened here at AW. And as far as asking question about the issues when it seems you've prejudged the entire thing.... I do have to laugh at your Aunt Bea reaction to the image; I think you know that the point of the picture was the fact that it's "faceless," and nowhere on the site is it characterized as "dead." We all know that the faceless walk, talk, and post profusely among us, which argues against their decease. Anyway, I think the picture may be the original anonymous coward, double-edged axe in hand. But enough already with de asini umbra disceptare. Let's get back to Amazon.
posted on December 5, 2000 01:15:14 PM
Pareau: I think you know she was pissed off. I think you probably have misinterpreted why (and no I don't know the reason).
As far as the picture you entitled "Faceless Amazon holding an double edged axe" is concerned. Take a look at the position of the ax. It is not being held. It's lying beside a slain warrior.
Irene
[ edited by stockticker on Dec 5, 2000 01:15 PM ]
The picture is the 5th link down. Note the name of the link: "Faceless Amazon holding an double edged axe." Heck, if you did a Google search on the phrase, you'd come up with the same link. I didn't give it the title, the site author did, so blame him/her/it for rank tastelessness. Before you start whaling in that direction, tho, you might note that in all of the friezes and details shown on that page, the Amazons are live. It's your interpretation that this one represents a "slain warrior." Like anyone gives a piffle, but you keep hammering, and you're off, off, off. Needless to say, you're batting zip in other quarters, too.
Sure hope your listings are going well, Irene.
posted on December 5, 2000 05:26:02 PM
I took it as an Amazon fighting,(left arm flexed, fist clenched, right arm broken off the fragment, but appears to be a blob(hand?) holding the axe). The axe confused me with the more modern drapery, since I associate the double edge axe with the Minoans of Crete (harvest, ect.) and a more archaic form.
I didn't know Amazon was requiring SSNs of buyers. And I've been looking for some books there lately too...DANG! Geez, I'll need a 2nd idenity to buy anything soon!
posted on December 5, 2000 05:29:20 PM
kenny- i am liking you more and more. how did this go from a discussion of amazon's proposed privacy violations to an esoteric spat? get into the holiday spirit guys and girls and stop making every thread a p*ssing match!
posted on December 5, 2000 05:34:58 PM
Yes, kenny. Dead people inside of it. Pictures of live people on the outside of it. To wit:
- detail of another amazon attack (dead people don't attack, except, apparently, at the RT)
- An Amazon defending herself (from beyond the grave, perchance?)
- Faceless Amazon holding an double edged axe. (done that one to death)
- Amazon being attacked (can we presume it's not corpse desecration?)
South Freize, attributed to Timotheus?
- Amazon being attacked 2 (see above)
- amazons fighting (more of same)
North Freize, attributed to Bryaxis?
- Charging Amazon with flying cloak. (sounds pretty lively)
- detail of Amazon with flying cloak.
Think you'd best stick to purloining tired political commentary, krs. Good luck finding others' fresh material!
posted on December 5, 2000 08:15:50 PM
I wonder, pareau, if you dribble and spit while you speak.
A mausoleum of the dead, a depiction of the death or the battle which brought the death outside, else why would it be there at all. A celebration of the manner of the death of the dead contained within.
I have seen corpses without faces but never spoke to a life person lacking a face.
By the way, have you heard from the person that you call "flakers"? I couldn't help but wonder at your supposed tribute to a poster long gone from here. We're you expressing aremembrance of the figurative dead from here? If so, I suppose your imagery is somewhat appropriate and not quite as petty and vindictive as it does at first seem.
posted on December 7, 2000 09:02:45 AM
Just wanted to share the answer I received in reply to my asking to be unsubscribed from their site IF they were selling users credit card numbers.
Dear Linda,
Thank you for taking the time to write to us here at Amazon.com. Please rest assured that Amazon.com is not in the business of selling customer information.
The recent update to our Privacy Notice was instituted in order to clarify the ways that we collect and share information. It is intended to help our customers make informed decisions about sharing personal data with us when shopping on our web site. The information mentioned in our Privacy Notice refers to information given by customers who visit Amazon.com, not to that information provided by members of our Advantage or Associates programs as part of these programs, or by sellers through our Auctions and zShops stores in connection with those stores.
I hope this resolves your concerns, and that you'll feel comfortable remaining with Amazon.com and participating on the site. However, if you would still like us to close your account, please write again with your zip code and the last five digits of your credit card, so we can verify that it's your account.
Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions or concerns. Thank you again for writing to Amazon.com.
Best regards,
Tommy L.
Amazon.com
Earth's Biggest Selection
http://www.amazon.com
==============================
Subject: UNSUBSCRIBING from Amazon.com
To: (edited by me) @amazon.com
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 10:46:28 -0600 (CST)
From: my email address - edited
To Whom It May Concern: While reading Auctionwatch.com I came across a thread that spoke to the fact that Amazon.com sells it's users personal information. For this reason I wish to be unsubscribe from your site effective immediately. Accept this email as notice that I do NOT wish any of my information to be sold to anyone.
See the referenced message URL's below.
from http://news.excite.com/news/ap/001204/23/amazon-privacy See:
http://www.junkbusters.com/amazon.html
http://www.epic.org/privacy/internet/amazon/ftcletterpr.html
posted on December 7, 2000 09:38:41 AMI hope this resolves your concerns, and that you'll feel comfortable remaining with Amazon.com and participating on the site. However, if you would still like us to close your account, please write again with your zip code and the last five digits of your credit card, so we can verify that it's your account.
I dunno, LindaK. "TommyL" tells you what to do if you want your account closed, and you're clearly intended to infer that he'll close your account if you provide him the requested info... but he doesn't actually say he'll do any such thing, does he?
posted on December 7, 2000 10:23:30 AM
No, Pareau, he didn't.
Where I had a problem with his response was when he stated the information was not sold, but rather 'shared'. ("The recent update to our Privacy Notice was instituted in order to clarify the ways that we collect and share information." I would bet that most sellers on Amazon, just like on ebay, are both sellers and buyers. So, the way I took the reponse, was that one way or the other....my information could be 'shared'.
posted on December 7, 2000 05:04:16 PM
Linda, they may use "sharing" because lists and such info are traditionally "rented"--that, and it's one of those cozyspeak words used to incite the warm'n'fuzzies.
stusi, did you know that the Slovenian pronunciation of your name is "stoo-see"? (Not sure whether the Finnish spin on it would be the same.) I just had to mention it, because it reminds me sooo much of another user ID.
Now, what graphic are you all uppercased about?
- Pareau
