Privacy May Dog Online Advertising

A Texas woman is suing Blockbuster for sharing details of her movie rental and purchase activities with Facebook through the Beacon program, according to the Associated Press. An Advertising Age article I recently wrote looks at the privacy issues that are likely to face those marketing online, and this is a great example. It's not that "real world" marketing is any better. In fact, much of it is worse in terms of the information it collects, coordinates, and uses, but because of the time spans between collection and use, and the lack of apparent connection, this has been largely invisible. However, the digital world is making this more obvious, rubbing the results in the faces of people. Those in marketing had best pay attention, because these are issues that can too easily bite when you least expect them.

Coming U.S. Bank Failures?

The Financial Times is reporting that the U.S. comptroller of the currency John Dugan, who oversees about 1,700 national banks, said that banks failures will rise back for virtually none to at least historic rates, and could climb above that.

“That is a natural consequence of the economy going from historically exceptionally benign credit conditions to something that is more normal to something you would get in a downturn.”

Mr Dugan’s comments come as US banks report big spikes in reserves for expected losses on consumer and small business loans, reflecting the spread of the credit crisis from Wall Street to the broader economy.

As companies shove more money onto the shelf for reserves against expected losses, they have less money to invest, less money to pay off obligations, and less money to calm down panicked investors who suddenly want their cash back and who create a run on the bank. Can you say Bear Stearns?

Online Networking for Jobs

I had forgotten a piece I wrote for AdAge that was in the magazine last month, about using social networking sites to find a new job. Although focused on marketing people, the techniques and principles should work for anyone.

Ignoring Data Security Could Spell Lawsuit

If you are an executive in business - or you are a consumer - then this posting and series of comments from Slashdot.org should scare the heck out of you. The original author writes:

I see our customers turn a blind eye to blatant security issues, in the name of the application or business requirements. I see our own senior officers reduce the risk ratings of internal findings, and even strong-arm 3rd party auditors/testers to reduce their risk ratings on the threat of losing our business. It's truly sad that the fear of losing our jobs and the necessity of supporting our families comes first before the security of highly confidential information.

If that isn't chilling enough, scroll down the page and see one story after another that, if known to the people affected, could easily lead to significant law suits:

• I was employed in a medical software company that did not treat their staff terribly yet managed to deploy products that were genuinely unsafe. This was in the imaging dept.of a medical records company - imaging handled diagnostic images as well as records for archival. This needed to be 100%+ HIPPA [hhs.gov] compliant and was nowhere close.
• Don't even get me started. I work at a company which makes document imaging software and our customers send us all kinds of crap that honestly, scares the shit out of me. Not to mention information specifically protected by law. Most of the time, I get the sense that the sender didn't even remotely think about it. All they know is "this is not viewing/printing how it should" and so off they send it, as an attachment on unencrypted email.
• I remember in my days consulting, I got sent a DB to look at. This DB held all the personal information for everyone who was worth over $X. The DB contained SSN's, spouse's name, spouse's SSN, etc. As soon as I saw this DB, I asked where the NDA for it was. When I was told there was no NDA [non-disclosure agreement] sent over, I felt sorry for everyone who's information was in there.
• I work for a very large US government department. Our agency oversees all of the child agencies. If we leak information about how we fast-talk the 20-some year old college graduate security auditors that know jack about computers, we would surely lose our contract. Our contract pays big, on the order of a few million per year. We have a total staff a little over 20, do the math. If the federal it director says to do it one way, we do it that one way to ensure nice paychecks to our employees.

By no means are all the posts negative, and some mention companies that seem to take security seriously. But for any company of significant size not to grasp the potential liability of inadequately handling data to which it has been entrusted is dumbfounding. Are they waiting for the class action suit to get dropped on their desks?

Renters: Another Impact of the Mortgage and Credit Crisis

When people cannot pay for the buildings they purchased, those properties go into foreclosure. And when the people who bought purchased multi-family dwellings, perhaps thinking that renters would pay for the mortgage, there's the chance that multiple families will hit the streets in the foreclosure process. It's a hidden aspect of the mortgage crisis. According to Crain's New York Business, a new survey suggests that 38,000 tenants live in 15,000 buildings that went into foreclosure last year:

Foreclosures could leave tens of thousands of New Yorkers who live in rental apartments without places to live, according to an analysis released Monday by New York University’s Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy.

Nearly 60% of the 15,000 foreclosure filings in New York City last year involved two- to four-family or multi–family buildings. That means renters, and not just owners, could be sent scrambling.

So where are these people supposed to go? And is anyone tallying their costs as part of the mortgage crisis?

How Stupid Can Companies Be When Dealing With Customers?

I understand that companies are under economic pressure, but, really, every time they cut important corners, the news does come out. So why are they willing to risk so much? You have Southwest Airlines with a huge black eye from trying to evade required airline maintenance and American Airlines grounding so many flights that they'd have to bring on a new fleet just to get back up to zero. Bad press, destroying any customer good will, and paying through the nose to deal with travelers who are now stranded.

It all came from not taking care of business in time, when it would have cost a lot less. And now we see Hewlett-Packard dealing with an "issue" - different industry, same hot water. According to Computerworld, the company has admitted seeing flash-floppy drives infected with viruses intended to work with its HP's ProLiant Server line.

A security analyst with the SANS Institute's Internet Storm Center (ISC) suspects that the infection originated at the factory, and was meant to target ProLiant servers. "I think it's naive to assume that these are not targeted attacks," said John Bambenek, who is also a researcher at the University of Illinois.

Think that's bad? Try Best Buy, which admitted in January that it had sold digital photo frames containing malware, but the company didn't recall them. What were all these people thinking? That they could ignore prudent action to keep customers safe, and that no one would notice.

Power of Corporate Trademark Stupidity

Sometimes it's foolish to let the lawyers out without a nanny - particularly when your company has a reputation for being unreasonably litigious. And Apple may have taken its legal fierceness a few steps too far. The company has decided to mount a legal challenge over the GreeNYC logo. That logo belongs to the City of New York and is part of a campaign to have consumers go green by lowering energy consumption.

NYC registered a trademark on the green apple with stem that doesn't have a bite taken out of it. A few months later, Apple registered a challenge. Mind you, there is no reasonably way one could confuse reducing energy consumption in New York City with the computer and consumer electronics company. If they think that's a threat, why not go after Apple Records because they're involved in music, and that at least has some connection to the iPod. Oh, wait, right - Apple Records was there first.

So Apple Inc. thinks that NYC is competition and is taking action? Let's count all the ways this is about one of the most stupid things it could have done:

1. New York City isn't some kid in Harvard writing a blog and without funds. This is an economy unto itself, with lots of wherewithal to mount a legal challenge that will rattle the teeth of Steve Jobs.


2. This has got to be an incredibly stupid PR move. The company is essentially branding itself as anti-green.


3. New York City has used the Big Apple as a slogan far earlier than the first time Steve Wozniak cobbled together his first personal computer prototype.


4. Because there are so many organizations and businesses using apples in names and logos, as the City Room blog of the New York Times points out, Apple has very possibly fallen into the dangerous ground of selectively protecting its trademark, which could provide grounds for it to lose that bit of intellectual property.


5. The city realizes the potential weakness of Apple's position, because it responded to the US Patent and Trademark office that Apple used fraud to win overly broad protection.

In other words, because it decided to get heavy-handed this particular time, Apple's grasp on its apple could slip. How valuable is a brand logo if you no longer own it?

IBM Under Temporary Ban from New Federal Contracts

Well, I certainly was surprised by this: prosecutors are examining the relationships between IBM employees and the Environmental Protection Agency. When there is a suspected procurement problem, all federal agencies tend to follow the lead of the one involved in an action. That could quickly become serious for Big Blue:

Armonk, N.Y.-based IBM does business with all corners of the government, though the Defense and Homeland Security departments are much bigger customers than the EPA, according to federal spending databases. Last year IBM's contracts amounted to at least $1.3 billion, roughly 1 percent of its 2007 revenue.

That's not a huge amount, but I wonder if it could scare other business off. No publicly-held corporation will be interested in appearing to be involved in questionable business, even if by proxy. Here's a copy of the emailed statement from the EPA.