Mailbag: P3P misses the privacy boat

Many of you wrote in to agree with me that the W3C's Platform for Privacy Preferences might be a far cry from an antidote to privacy woes.

Instead, some of you suggested that it poses more problems than it solves. One reader said, "I think P3P is fundamentally flawed because it exposes corporate Web administers to undue legal liability. The P3P codes are legally binding on corporations, but the P3P language does not give corporate users adequate tools for stating accurate privacy policies that would limit liability."

Other readers said the best policy is not to need a policy. If you're not selling any information, then you wouldn't need to warn anyone about it. But how realistic is that in today's world of e-commerce.

A reader said, "Does someone really want to protect people's privacy? Then what would be effective is passing a law to the effect that no one can sell or share anything of yours (name, address, and so on) without your express authorization as to the specific items they wish to sell or share."

He added, "For example: May we sell the following information about you to other companies? Name, address, items to be purchased and amount?"

Finally, he said that for recourse when this is not followed, "put this in a national privacy law. Give everyone a 1-800 hotline number to call if they think their information has been shared/sold without their authorization, and let whatever government agency investigate these claims and take whatever action is needed."

Another reader suggested: "...change the law to say all information that can be reasonably identified with an individual the property of that individual, to be used or stored by other entities only with express permission for reasonable and clearly disclosed purposes - just as is now happening with healthcare information. At this point, any use requires disclosure and permission, as it should be."

My favorite response was from a reader who claimed that the industry "does not have the moral fiber" to do what has to be done to protect privacy.

"Companies rightly fear that if offered a choice to 'opt in' people will generally refuse, or at least be very selective," he said. "People do care about their privacy. It is not that they resent having their underwear preferences sold to the highest bidder, it is that the marketing industry has consciously erected such impenetrable barriers to free choice that most people have given up."

What do you think? Let me know at sgittlen@nww.com.

Sandra Gittlen is events editor for Network World's Seminars and Events Group. Previously, she was managing editor of Network World Fusion and senior reporter covering Internet research and standards for Network World magazine. She can be reached at sgittlen@nww.com.

E-commerce archive
Past newsletters.