I was thinking about occasionally blogging about the privacy issues that I learn through my work and my studies.* What I've found is that I learn about concepts that I really would have liked to know as a consumer. So, I figured that I would share information that applies to those situations that I see here in the online LJ world.
This
theferret thing has raised an issue that's been bugging me for awhile. While it's a nitpicky response to something that's insulting on so many higher levels, others are discussing those issues. This is what I know and what I've reacted to.
Opt-in consent does not give you the right to do whatever the hell you want.
Let me give you a little background. The concept of opt-in was developed as a way to get consumer's consent for the actions of company's that are legally allowed and yet not always desired by consumers. In most cases, opt-in is currently being used to gather consent for certain marketing purposes. However, I've seen opt-in used as a phrase in more social situations and for the most part, people are doing it wrong.
Getting opt-in consent does not free you from having to follow the laws, be they legal, moral or social. In fact, when you get opt-in consent, you have established a contractual relationship with the consumer and therefore have to be very sure that you fulfill that contract exactly how you promise to.
In the case of the opt-in consent to public groping, just because you got the victims' consent doesn't mean that what you are doing is right or allowed. You still have to obey the social contracts and rules that we have in our society. Have their consent doesn't make it right.
Also, consent must be freely given in order to be valid. Can a social situation where there is a pressure to prove your sexual comfort ever lead to freely given consent? No.
I have one other point that has nothing to do with the Open Groproval Project. There seems to be a confusion regarding the use of opt-in consent and opt-out consent. This confusion is not limited to consumers but is something companies and some privacy professionals seem to get wrong.
Opt-in consent requires an action on the part of the consumer. The consumer must do something in order to show his or her consent. Opt-out consent requires the consumer to do nothing. To not tell the company that they do not want to participate.
When you are ordering something online and they are asking if you want to receive marketing materials from third-party partners, you must give them opt-in consent to give your email address to a third-party. If there is a tickey box next to that statement and the box is already checked, that is not opt-in consent. That is opt-out consent. In order to get opt-in consent, the box must be empty and the consumer must choose to fill it in.
It seems like a nitpicky detail but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Feel free to ask if you have any questions regarding opt-in, opt-out or any other kind of consent.
* I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on the internets.
This
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Opt-in consent does not give you the right to do whatever the hell you want.
Let me give you a little background. The concept of opt-in was developed as a way to get consumer's consent for the actions of company's that are legally allowed and yet not always desired by consumers. In most cases, opt-in is currently being used to gather consent for certain marketing purposes. However, I've seen opt-in used as a phrase in more social situations and for the most part, people are doing it wrong.
Getting opt-in consent does not free you from having to follow the laws, be they legal, moral or social. In fact, when you get opt-in consent, you have established a contractual relationship with the consumer and therefore have to be very sure that you fulfill that contract exactly how you promise to.
In the case of the opt-in consent to public groping, just because you got the victims' consent doesn't mean that what you are doing is right or allowed. You still have to obey the social contracts and rules that we have in our society. Have their consent doesn't make it right.
Also, consent must be freely given in order to be valid. Can a social situation where there is a pressure to prove your sexual comfort ever lead to freely given consent? No.
I have one other point that has nothing to do with the Open Groproval Project. There seems to be a confusion regarding the use of opt-in consent and opt-out consent. This confusion is not limited to consumers but is something companies and some privacy professionals seem to get wrong.
Opt-in consent requires an action on the part of the consumer. The consumer must do something in order to show his or her consent. Opt-out consent requires the consumer to do nothing. To not tell the company that they do not want to participate.
When you are ordering something online and they are asking if you want to receive marketing materials from third-party partners, you must give them opt-in consent to give your email address to a third-party. If there is a tickey box next to that statement and the box is already checked, that is not opt-in consent. That is opt-out consent. In order to get opt-in consent, the box must be empty and the consumer must choose to fill it in.
It seems like a nitpicky detail but it shows a fundamental lack of understanding. Feel free to ask if you have any questions regarding opt-in, opt-out or any other kind of consent.
* I am not a lawyer and I do not play one on the internets.