Tom Regan
Media didn't give Comet Systems a chance to explain
|
Last Thursday, I reported that Comet Systems Inc. had been 'secretly tracking' its users. (Comet produces software that turns a cursor into a cartoon character or logo when it lands on a site that supports the software.) The Associated Press ran a story about Comet, which included comments by a Massachusetts-based privacy expert who said that Comet was using a 'unique identifier' to track movements of users -- unbeknownst to the users. Many of us who cover the Net saw it as just another in a long list of privacy violations.
While I did include a quote from Comet spokesman Ben Austin included in the original AP story (which said his company didn't use and would never use the data for tracking unique individuals), I didn't contact Austin -- something it seems almost none of the reporters/ commentators who wrote about the story bothered to do. Shame on us.
It turns out the story is more complicated than first presented by AP, and that Comet is not the 'privacy destroyer' that it was painted to be in the media -- but that it did show poor judgement in communicating with its users, and that's part of what caused the problem.
Earlier this week, I talked with Ben Austin of Comet Systems, who is a remarkably patient man, all things considered. He explained that Comet has never hidden the fact from the media that they use these 'download numbers' to determine when someone who is using their software visits one of their sponsor sites -- in fact, this is how they make money. If they had no way of knowing when people visit, there would be no reason for sites to use Comet. (Comet, for instance, talked about their use of these numbers in an interview with The Industry Standard -- a leading Internet business mag -- in January of this year.)
What Austin particularly objected to was the notion presented in my article, and in the other coverage, that these download numbers were 'serial numbers' that were being used to secretly track an individual's from site to site, when in fact they just register that a Comet user has visited a particular sponsor's site. He also said that unlike AOL's Instant Messager, or similar services, Comet does not requite people to divulge personal information in order to use the software.
So first let me say that we in the press should have 'pressed' a little harder for the complete details. We didn't do a very good job, and Comet paid the price for our lack of throughness. If you want more information about how it all transpired, read "Privacy Story Moves Like a Comet" (http://www.thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,8100,00.html).
But now we also need about to look at Comet's actions. When I asked Austin if Comet had ever notified users of the software or visitors to the company's Web site that the cursor software would provide some information to sponsors, he admitted that Comet did not, and that this had been a mistake -- an unintentional one -- on Comet's behalf. He noted that the company did have a privacy policy that stated how it used this information, but that it hadn't posted it to its site until after the media feeding frenzy began. This, unfortunately, is a little like locking the barn door after the cow has gotten out.
I believe Ben Austin when he says Comet was not trying to fool its users. But I also think there is a lesson in this mix-up for all companies doing business on the Net -- ALWAYS let your customers know what you're doing.
The reality is that most people don't mind using software that records or measures some part of their online surfing, just as long as they know they are being tracked. If not, AOL wouldn't have so many millions using Instant Messenger. The same is true of cookies. I know that cookies record my visits to certain sites, but in almost every case, I'm willing to allow that to happen in return for the value I receive -- because these sites have prominent privacy policies that let people know how and why that information is gathered. You might lose a few people who don't want to be recorded, ever, but you'll gain the respect and loyalty of the many others who don't mind. And you won't have us in the media painting you with broad brush strokes.
As I said above, the actual story is about not doing enough -- journalists not doing enough to get their facts straight and a company not doing enough to let people know that it meant no harm. Let's hope we all do better in the future.