Privacy Request Form 2009: Fill & Download for Free

What: Bank of America.​Why: I was young and not very good with finances yet and also living paycheck to paycheck. This was early 2009. I over drew my account by about $100, but made up of various small transactions, some as small as $2. I had a savings account with overdraft protection turned on, but the account only had $7 in it.By the time all was said and done, I owed BoA about $1400 in overdraft fees beyond the $100 I went over. They managed to get them higher by shuffling my charges to make the big ones first, overdrawing the account sooner. Additionally, they charged me $10 to move the $7 from my savings account, then charged me an overdraft fee for not covering the fee. Each fee was $35. They were kind enough to send me a postcard via USPS letting me know my account was overdrawn, but they continued to approve my purchases to "avoid embarrassment of having my card rejected".I spent hours on the phone with them trying to talk them down on the fees. I had already paid $350 in fees when my paycheck was deposited, but I was attempting to get rid of the other $1100. No one would budge. Manager after manager. My boss, who had a business account with them, got on the phone and we finally managed to get them to lower the fees by $100. I declined their offer.Unwilling to go down without a fight, I started calling and writing anyone and anything I thought would help, including news organizations, bank controllers, and even the mayor and Pennsylvania Attorney General. I wrote respectful letters, talking about my struggle paying for my medication and how a bank was trying to drain me with fees. Surprisingly, this got results. The Attorney General contacted the BoA headquarters and I received a call from their corporate office. The person on the other line said they wanted to help me out. I asked them how and they offered me two choices. Remain a customer and they would reduce my fees by 50%. I would still owe another $350 in fees. Or they would clear out all the remaining fees, minus what I had already paid, and I would be banned from Bank of America for life. I took the offer and I'm banned.I've been curious as to what would happen if I walked in and tried to open an account.Update: I have been getting a lot of requests in the comments to attempt to open an account there and see what happens. I did so and was instantly rejected. They would not give me a reason why. I did receive a follow-up email:MICHAEL VOGEL,We received your recent application for the listed product(s). However, based on our records, we're unable to open new deposit accounts for one or more applicants.Bank of America Core Checking® AccountFor your privacy, we don't share details in this email of why we were unable to fulfill your request online.

I am surprised no one has yet mentioned about a modern "marketing"(literally) disaster by one of the largest tech firms of the modern era viz. Facebook (and as fate would have it the founders of Quora were at Facebook at that point of time). So what exactly happened?November 6, 2007 : Facebook launches a new advertising programMark Zuckerberg announced a new feature on Facebook called "Facebook Ads" (there was a "Beacon Application" to work behind the scenes) which would help advertisers to launch targeted advertisements and have access to analytics on Facebook users [0]. What would happen is that if a Facebook user made purchases on some of these "partner websites" (like Adidas, Travelocity etc.) these would be shared automatically to your News Feed. So for example, if you bought a movie ticket on Fandango, this third party website where the Beacon application covertly resided tracked information from your Facebook profile and would send this information to your News feed. It was seen to be a recommendation (or thumbs-up) from a trusted friend.What was the problem?It worked great in theory but like Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut once said- "In theory; practice & theory are same. In practice; they are different". There were multiple problems. First, Facebook did not make the opt-out procedure clearer to users. The opt-out box came between the time of purchase and the time of publishing to your "News Feed" for a "few seconds" and it was incredibly hard for users to find. Next, If you ignored this box ( the pop-up window which came in the time between your purchase and news feed publishing) Facebook would assume that you are OK with publishing it your friends. Boom! Now, users started to face issues with this as some of them were not really aware that ignoring would make Facebook make such an assumption. For example, Charlene Li, a Forrester research analyst, bought a coffee table on http://Overstock.com and it was published on her Facebook News Feed without her permission i.e. she did not notice an "opt-out" box [1]. There was also something interesting that Charlene observedIt turns out that my husband and I inadvertently both bought the same coffee table from http://Overstock.com on the same day (yeah, not the greatest spousal communication going on!). I suspect that the order that made it on to my Facebook profile was actually HIS order, because I had additional items in my order.So that means when my husband purchased the coffee table, because the Facebook cookie on that machine was for my Facebook account (my husband is not on Facebook), the purchase was attributed to my profile. He also did not have any notification that http://Overstock.com was sending the information to Facebook.Woaah! Essentially, Facebook never bothered to check whether the data which they had could be of multiple Facebook users on the same computer. They just linked it haphazardly! Here is another comment on Charlene's blog.I purchased a diamond engagement ring set from overstock in preparation for a New Year's surprise for my girlfriend. Please note that this was something meant to be very special, and also very private at this point (for obvious reasons). Within hours, I received a shocking call from one of my best friends of surprise and "congratulations" for getting engaged.(!!!)Imagine my horror when I learned that overstock had published the details of my purchase (including a link to the item and its price) on my public facebook newsfeed, as well as notifications to all of my friends. ALL OF MY FRIENDS, including my girlfriend, and all of her friends, etc...ALL OF THIS WAS WITHOUT MY CONSENT OR KNOWLEDGE.I am totally distressed that my surprise was ruined, and what was meant to be something special and a lifetime memory for my girlfriend and I was destroyed by a totally underhanded and infuriating privacy invasion. I want to wring the neck of the folks at overstock and facebook who thought that this was a good idea. It sets a terrible precedent on the net, and I feel that it ruined a part of my life.Now, users were getting riled up and people were getting uneasy about sharing such activity to their friends. Facebook was no longer a shining "Beacon".November 20, 2007 : MoveOn.org files an online petitionMoveOn an activist group quickly jumped on the bandwagon and came up with an online petition campaign against Facebook's new tool [2]. Their claims were quite simple - the controls provided by Facebook were not "enough" [3]."The bottom line," MoveOn spokesman Adam Green said in an interview with CNET CNET News, "is that no Facebook user should have their private purchases online posted for the entire world to see without their explicit opted-in permission."It's true that Beacon advertisements are limited to the news feeds of the people on a user's friends list, but Green said that doesn't make a difference. He cited Facebook user testimonials that ranged from members who said their entire Christmas lists had been published on their News Feeds (spoiling many a surprise in the process) to student activists who were concerned that sensitive purchases might show up and result in serious consequences--"If a college kid rents Brokeback Mountain and some homophobic person on his campus sees that, that could be a real problem," he explained.Beacon does allow members to opt out. But, Green said, that isn't enough for MoveOn, which got its start as a left-leaning grassroots organization. "The opt-out is very well hidden," he said. "It basically pops up for a second and then goes away, and it's on the bottom of your screen when you're purchasing on a totally unrelated Web site, so you aren't even looking for it." He added that there's not a universal opt-out, so members have to repeat the process on each partner site. "Even if you see the opt-out and jump through the hoops of opting out once, that doesn't solve the problem."November 29, 2007 : Facebook tries hard to prove itself rightNow, MoveOn was getting huge traction. In 10 days, more than 50000 users had signed up for it's petition and Facebook was under the pump. Rather than switching off the system Facebook kept playing with it's interface for the whole week [4]. Earlier they wereand now Facebook tweaked it too this on Wednesday that weekThursday morning the same thing becameThursday late night becameNow, Facebook for the first time was feeling pressure. At this point, they changed the settings so that if you ignore this pop-up box things would no longer be posted on your News Feed unlike earlier. But, the issue had blown out of proportion and anything other than an explicit "opt-out" option would not satisfy Facebook users. Even third-party websites like Overstock.com and Coke stopped using Beacon for the time being unless the mess sorted out.Facebook on its part refused to add the "opt-out" option as it felt that this was similar too a reception which they received for the "News Feed" feature (this was not always present on Facebook). Facebook users initially protested, protested and protested but finally came to like it. But what Facebook missed is that this was concerned with private data. Here's a statement from the then VP of Facebook Chamath Palihapitiya [5]“Whenever we innovate and create great new experiences and new features, if they are not well understood at the outset, one thing we need to do is give people an opportunity to interact with them,” said Chamath Palihapitiya, a vice president at Facebook. “After a while, they fall in love with them.”Mr. Palihapitiya was referring to Facebook’s controversial introduction of the News Feed feature last year. More than 700,000 people protested that feature, and Mr. Zuckerberg publicly apologized for aspects of it. However, Facebook did not remove the feature, and eventually users came to like it, Mr. Palihapitiya said. He said Facebook would not add a universal opt-out to Beacon, as many members have requested.Oh and this was not only it. Now apparently, even though you didn't share information with your friends these third party websites were sending information to Facebook [6]. So if you bought tickets on Fandango this information would be with Facebook as well (without your explicit permission). Moreover, there was no where to know where this data was stored or how it was being used. However, the VP of President denied such a thing [7]Q. If I buy tickets on Fandango, and decline to publish the purchase to my friends on Facebook, does Facebook still receive the information about my purchase?A. “Absolutely not. One of the things we are still trying to do is dispel a lot of misinformation that is being propagated unnecessarily.”Confusion, confusion! Apparently, this interview was given hours before another major change in "Beacon" settings but this made the situation even more dramatic .December 5, 2007 Mark Zuckerberg caves in to demandsMark Zuckerberg publicly apologized for Beacon and accepted that Beacon will be a completely opt-in system with a control to turn it off if you want to [8].Last week we changed Beacon to be an opt-in system, and today we're releasing a privacy control to turn off Beacon completely. You can find it here. If you select that you don't want to share some Beacon actions or if you turn off Beacon, then Facebook won't store those actions even when partners send them to Facebook.Now, law suit time!April 18, 2008 : Blockbuster sued over Facebook Beacon information sharingBlockbuster the movie rental website was sued over information sharing of customers using Beacon for breaking the provisions of the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1998 [9]. It sought damages for $2500 on each instance of breach.August 13, 2008 : Facebook sued over BeaconWell you don't expect Facebook not to be sued, do you? In fact, Facebook faced "class-action" suit over Beacon [10]. It was rightfully alleged that data from all users visiting third-party websites were sent to BeaconBeacon collected information about all visitors -- not just Facebook users -- who conducted certain activities on the third-party sites that were part of the program, according to the suit, which was filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. For example, any time someone bought or rented a movie or placed a movie in their queue on Blockbuster.com, a notification about the activity was sent to Facebook. That happened regardless of whether the person using the Blockbuster site was a Facebook customer."Thus, non-Facebook persons who utilized the Facebook Beacon Activated Affiliate Websites were not told that their transaction, and indeed, every transaction they engaged in upon the Website was being communicated to a third party (Facebook) with whom they had no relationship whatsoever," the suit reads.September-November, 2009 : Law suit settlement, Beacon shut downThe law suit settlement stated thatIn a settlement reached last week, Facebook agreed to set up a $9.5 million class fund, and "terminate the Beacon program in its entirety" within 60 days of the settlement being approved. If the deal is not approved, Facebook reserves the right to revive Beacon.Plaintiff Sean Lane, whose Overstock.com purchase of a 14K diamond ring showed up on his news feed, will receive $15,000 in compensation. Plaintiffs Sean Martin and Mohammed Sheika will each receive $7,500, and other plaintiffs will receive $1,000.So, Beacon was shut down with $9.5 million class fund. Facebook set up a website for the law suit (now defunct) and a notice was sent to users who used Beacon in the former period [12]. Facebook paid 19 users who were smart and exercised their rights [13]. FTC website also said that Facebook needed to [14] :barred from making misrepresentations about the privacy or security of consumers' personal information;required to obtain consumers' affirmative express consent before enacting changes that override their privacy preferences;required to prevent anyone from accessing a user's material more than 30 days after the user has deleted his or her account;required to establish and maintain a comprehensive privacy program designed to address privacy risks associated with the development and management of new and existing products and services, and to protect the privacy and confidentiality of consumers' information; andrequired, within 180 days, and every two years after that for the next 20 years, to obtain independent, third-party audits certifying that it has a privacy program in place that meets or exceeds the requirements of the FTC order, and to ensure that the privacy of consumers' information is protected.Mark Zuckerberg followed this up with a blog post in which he explicitly apologized for "Beacon" [15]Overall, I think we have a good history of providing transparency and control over who can see your information.That said, I'm the first to admit that we've made a bunch of mistakes. In particular, I think that a small number of high profile mistakes, like Beacon four years ago and poor execution as we transitioned our privacy model two years ago, have often overshadowed much of the good work we've done.So, there you go folks a modern day "marketing" or PR disaster (quite literally).[0] Facebook Ads makes a flashy debut in New York[1] http://forrester.typepad.com/groundswell/2007/11/close-encounter.html[2] Facebook must respect privacy[3] http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-9821170-36.html[4] The Evolution of Facebook's Beacon[5] Facebook Retreats on Online Tracking[6] Facebook's Beacon More Intrusive Than Previously Thought | PCWorld[7] Facebook Executive Discusses Beacon Brouhaha[8] Thoughts on Beacon[9] Page on Computerworld[10] http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/081308-facebook-faces-class-action-suit-over.html[11] Facebook Partners With Nielsen, Ditches Beacon[12] Page on Beaconclasssettlement[13] What Facebook's Beacon settlement means for those involved[14] Facebook Settles FTC Charges That It Deceived Consumers By Failing To Keep Privacy Promises[15] Our Commitment to the Facebook Community

Your own children and grandchildren left without historical photos of Google Street ViewThere seems to be “obvious” Google Street View privacy code, made in Germany in 2009 and then infected EU:Automated blurring of faces and license platesManual blurring of some houses - at requestLoss of unblurred backupsWhile it seems to “preserve” privacy, in fact, if done this way, it would reach the opposite.Let’s say the unblurred backups are lost. Not proven, so there is a chance it’s not true, but let’s assume for the sake of argument.You teach your children the “value of privacy”. At the same time they go online, find such Street View:Then your children would learn that such Street View is a consequence of your privacy not broken many years ago. They would get negative advertising of privacy being incompatible with such wonder. That they could have had views of their own country many years ago, if not your pesky “privacy”.This “fear of privacy” would be emotional one, not a logical one. Therefore it would be very difficult to overrule it. Typically logic doesn’t override emotions - quite the opposite - typically emotions overrule logic.So, beware of extreme privacy regulations as they could backfire in the worst case. Damaging not only historical records but also the reputation of “privacy” itself.Hope I warned you.EDIT 1. Now I got feedback.> I don't get your point or your argument. Can you please explain?My point is that there was no single precedent case, in which “privacy” would backfire many years after it’s not broken. In case blurring of Google Street View can’t be undone, it would the the first ever such precedent case on Earth. And this could eventually create very negative emotional association - “privacy is something which backfires in such form years afterwards”. And now, if you also consider the fact that emotions are typically stronger than logic, it would be everything else but good.