🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3365286B.C9E@primenet.com>,
Charlie McCann  <chasmc@primenet.com> wrote:
>James J. Lippard wrote:
>> >> >(3) What is the name of the firm she works for
>> >> >(4) What is the firms address and phone number
>> >>
>> >> This information is not going to be given to you because GlobalCenter did
>> >> the research to select and hire this firm, and that information is company
>> >> confidential.
>> >
>> >You'll protect the identity of the spammers from the customers, and
>> >willingly give up the customers to the spammers. Are you proud of this
>> >Jim Lippard ?
>> 
>> 1.  There are no "spammers" involved in this situation, as you have
>>     already been informed repeatedly. 
>
>As you wish, I'll phrase it differently : You'll protect the identity of
>the telemarketing firm from customers, and willingly give up the
>customers to the telemarketing firm. Sounds *almost* as distasteful to
>me.

Here I would question the "give up" part.  It certainly carries an
inaccurate connotation.  Here's how I'd phrase it:

   Primenet gave a telemarketing firm temporary access to a random
   sample of user information in order to collect customer satisfaction
   data.

Just as Primenet has given temporary access to its user information by
the Arthur Andersen company in order to have its books audited.  BTW,
Arthur Andersen also contacted a random sample of customers to check the
accuracy of billing.  I assume you would have put up a similar protest had
they contacted you in the course of an audit.

>>     Yet you continue to describe
>>     the situation as though Primenet has given away or sold its
>>     customer data to a company which will use it to market products,
>>     sell to additional parties, etc., 
>
>Well there's no question about the former. Primenet admits it has shared
>personal/confidential information from it's customer data base with a
>telemarketing firm. If you're suggesting that I should feel safe in
>*their* data base than you request too much ... I don't even know who
>they are. 

"Given away" connotes no restrictions on the use of the data.  It has not
been entered into any kind of general telemarketing database.

It is standard practice for marketing research and survey firms--as well
as accounting firms--to destroy or return all confidential data such as
customer lists when finished using it for the purpose they were hired.

>I know that unscrupulous businesses seldom want to be identified. But
>most upstanding reputable businesses are eager to share their name. Your
>refusal to reveal the name of the telemarketing firm with which you
>shared my confidential information does nothing to engender confidence.

Sorry.

>>     and the only defense you have
>>     offered is that you do not know this to be untrue. 
>
>>     The only explanations I can
>>     think of are that you omit this data in order to make your outrage
>>     seem reasonable or out of malice.
>
>Look you want me to vouch for the reliability of a company that you
>won't even identify. That's silly.

No, I have no interest in your vouching for anybody.  I would simply like
to see you stop describing the situation in an intentionally misleading
way, but that would seem to be a desire that will never be satisfied.  You
have yet to provide any explanation for why you continue to do this,
instead you raise straw men like claiming that I am asking you to
recommend or vouch for the reliability of this company.

>> I have nothing to be either proud or embarrassed about here.
>
>That this could be a fitting epitaph for the end of another work day at
>Primenet is very, very sad.

It is only applied to my participation in this thread, not to my work day.

But then again, perhaps I should be embarrassed for having let my
participation continue this long.  I think it is fairly obvious where
everyone stands on this issue, so I will drop it.

--
Jim Lippard    lippard@(primenet.com ediacara.org skeptic.com)
Phoenix, Arizona  http://www.primenet.com/~lippard/
PGP Fingerprint: 35 65 66 9F 71 FE 50 57  35 09 0F F6 14 D0 C6 04