Your Privacy On ATS Is Now Certified by TRUSTe

Gotcha.

Encryption is CPU-intensive, for sure.

I hope that you do not rely on TRUSTe to pat you all on the back regarding the privacy of all the members of ATS. Hopefully you all will work just as hard to keep our privacy completely safe here at ATS, regardless of who it is that is certifying the work.
DocMoreau

en.wikipedia.org...

A survey conducted by Benjamin Edelman in January 2006 found that sites with TRUSTe certification were 50% more likely to violate privacy policies than uncertified sites.[7]
TRUSTe counters these charges with the argument that punishing “bad guys” and terminating rule breakers does not further TRUSTe’s mission of increasing trust between businesses and consumers. To accomplish that mission, TRUSTe works with companies to change business practices for the benefit of consumers.

Who is Benjamin Edelman?

cyber.law.harvard.edu...

Ben is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Economics at Harvard University and a student at the Harvard Law School. He previously studied economics and statistics as a student at Harvard College.

Ben's recent research agenda includes evaluation of registrations in new TLDs, a quantitative comparison of commercial and non-commercial uses of the Internet, and an examination of Internet filtering efforts by governments worldwide.

When at the Berkman Center, Ben's projects included analyzing the formative documents and continued activities of ICANN, running Berkman Center webcasts, and developing software tools for real-time use in meetings, classes, and special events. Ben previously oversaw ICANN Public Meeting webcasts and operated the technology used at ICANN's quarterly meetings. More recently, he wrote about domain name politics, particularly in the context of expired domain names subsequently used for pornography and registered with false WHOIS data.

Ben has served as a consulting and testifying expert for a variety of clients, including the ACLU, the National Association of Broadcasters, the National Football League, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and Wells Fargo.

www.aclu.org...

Ben Edelman is a student at Harvard and a researcher at its Berkman Center for Internet & Society, where he studies and writes about the Internet, its design, and its uses. He served as an expert witness on blocking programs in the ACLU's challenge to the Children's Internet Protection Act, a federal statute requiring the use of such programs in public libraries. He would like to continue his research on N2H2, but cannot proceed further without being able to access and examine its full list of blocked sites. To do this he will have to "reverse engineer" N2H2's program to figure out what security measures are preventing him from reviewing the list. With that information he can create a software tool to "circumvent" those measures and create a readable version of the list for review. He then wants to publish the block list, the circumvention tool that he used to get the list, and the results of his analysis of the list. Given the increasing role of blocking programs as an official means of censoring use of the Internet, the kind of research Ben does is an important means for citizens to monitor the software and its potential for abuse.

Originally posted by DocMoreau
I hope that you do not rely on TRUSTe to...

His nearly two year old 2006 report is here

As you can tell from his actual report, there appears to be some level of fundamental misunderstanding as to what TRUSTe offers, it does not certify that sites are "safe," it certifies that sites have policies, business practices, and privacy policies that protect user privacy.

Also, none of the sites he listed in his report are currently certified by TRUSTe... as far I can tell.


In our case, we decided to "put our money where our mouth is," and ensure that our privacy policies and business practices had a third-party confirmation. Additionally, TRUSTe provides mediation services for anyone who feels their privacy was violated via ATS.

Really outstanding, and above and beyond what members of a free forum have come to expect from a website. Once again ATS leads the way in Public Forum policy

Thank you very much S.O., and all staff involved in this extra protection for members.

Now we can say we have "safe" chat...lol

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


Ok I see your totally ignoring my questions. I guess I will conform to the masses.

Generic "good work" comment and pats on the back all around.

Good job as always guys, thanks. Now does this mean that the whole world will not know that I an really a life long inmate of a mental hospital?

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
Ok I see your totally ignoring my questions.

I don't see any questions of yours that weren't covered in my responses in this thread. Was there something specific I missed?

reply to post by Sanity Lost


Well they didnt untill that post

Well thats good news, though i never doubted the sites secuirty?

OH just had an idea: If it looks at security, can it look at our (UK) government? It seems to leek more then a holed sock

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
Ok I see your totally ignoring my questions.

I don't see any questions of yours that weren't covered in my responses in this thread. Was there something specific I missed?

Yes, here's a copy and paste from my post here...

Don't you think people will start to wonder why ATS needs a third party to take care of these things? Has there been problems in the past? Is there really a need for more bureaucracy?

Originally posted by AcesInTheHole
Don't you think people will start to wonder why ATS needs a third party to take care of these things? Has there been problems in the past? Is there really a need for more bureaucracy?

1) There have been several claims in the past, based on rumor and innuendo, that we (ATS management) have acted in a way contrary to our stated privacy policies. This third party confirmation helps to alleviate the concerns some may have because of such allegations.

2) Our core topics involve many issues where members, potential members, and non-member users may be concerned about adherence to stated privacy policies. This certification provides an increased (hopefully) level of comfort that we are serious about the privacy of our users.

3) For those who still feel we operate in a method contrary to our stated privacy policies, there is now a very public way to lodge a complaint with a third party arbitrator. Confirmed complaints would result in loss of our certification, which would be potentially troublesome given the high-profile way we've announced the certification.

Just saw my U2U in yello and wondered what it 'twas...

thank for the confidentiality!


Ghia

Thanks SO! You are looking a little haggard these days. Time for a catnap in Hawaii my friend.

I really was looking forward to mooning the mib's in their black vans parked in front of my house though.

It's a good move IMO. Of course you can never make total guarantee of privacy/security where the Internet is involved, but any steps towards that are good news.

I'm curious about the storage of the IP address each post is associated with though. You make it sound like that would be of no use to anyone, but it would be of massive use, unless of course as you say they are using proxies and other methods (still not foolproof). Is this storage legally required, or essential to the running of the site?

Also, I love the new 'facepalm' image you have SO

Originally posted by justyc

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
We had a very public melt-down of the old U2U storage system a few weeks back. Your old U2U's are still accessible (if they weren't corrupted, which all of mine were) in the member center.

i asked this question in the thread about the u2u's but it seems to have been overlooked last time i checked. what happened to the old outbox u2u's? perhaps some missing inbox u2us can be recovered from the other member who have the quoted replies in their outbox?

small bump. just re-asking this question.

Originally posted by justyc
just re-asking this question.

It was explained in the opening post here, when announcing the new and improved U2U system.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord


oh sorry - i missed that. was the outbox area more damaged then?

Hi SkepticOverlord/Bill,

I followed my u2u here, just read the updated Privacy Policy, and this thread. Thanks for keeping us up to date!

So, my friend, I'm having a problem with the word "share". You used it in the updated Privacy Policy and you said it again here in this thread. In my mind "will never be shared" does not equal "will never be sold".

Of course you won't just give the stuff away, but would you or can you sell it? As I read the new Privacy Policy the selling of e-mail addresses seems to be o.k., selling is not sharing or giving. Would you be willing to re-write the Privacy Policy to make it crystal clear that personal information will not be sold?

You do state in the new Privacy Policy that you do "share" demographic data with advertisers. I'm also having a hard time with that as I read that instance of the word "share" as "sell" as I cannot see you simply giving away for free valuable demographic data. (If you are freely giving away valuable demographic data then please sir, may I have that data too?)

Also, (and I'm probably the only person who feels this way) my demographic data is more personal and private to me than my "personal" data. I would much rather just give my e-mail address to the advertisers and deal with them that way than to have my ATS pages lag or lock up entirely because of targeted third party advertisements.

I am sorry SkepticOverlord/Bill, if I had not received the u2u then I would not be here commenting. But you asked for our comments. The word "share" is ambiguous to me, and my demographic data is more personal and private to me than my "personal" and "private" data is.

Those are my two comments.

Demographics are what make the modern world go around, I know there is nothing we can do about that.
Is there anything we can do about that word "share"?

Thanks!

Originally posted by daystrom
In my mind "will never be shared" does not equal "will never be sold".

Never means never, sold or otherwise.

You do state in the new Privacy Policy that you do "share" demographic data with advertisers.

The privacy policy states: "We use non-identifying and aggregate information to better design our website and to share with advertisers. For example, we may tell an advertiser that X number of individuals visited a certain area on our website, or that Y number of men and Z number of women filled out our registration form, but we would never disclose anything that could be used to identify any individuals."
That makes it clear that only aggregate demographic data is revealed.

Thank you SkepticOverlord/Bill.

The sharing of demographic data is common place and unavoidable (although distasteful to me personally it is a small price to pay for the services here)

My concern over the word "share" is due to some personal bad experiences with other web sites which claimed to "never share" personal data. They were true to their word, they never shared personal data. They sold it.

When members tried to complain they just laughed at us and stated that they were true to their terms and conditions which we agreed to.

Seeing the effort you are putting into this and having read the eTrust web site more thuroughly now I simply can not imagine our personal data getting out of here unless someone is prying it from your cold dead fingers.

Thank you for watching out for us.