This FAQ section is reserved for interesting and unusual questions whose answers didn't really fit anywhere else. In particular, this isn't a summary or simplification of other material. The Table of Contents lets you get quickly to the basic information.
Unless you're a hermit, your name is probably already on untold hundreds or thousands of lists, and the number increases every week. The major direct marketers start with a database of almost every consumer in the country. They already know who you are, and one of their tasks is to buy and sell as much information about you as is profitable to them. All direct marketers presume that unless you tell them otherwise (in which case they put flag your name as ``do-not-rent''), they can sell any data about you to anyone who will pay for it. That puts your name on the lists and in the databases of other organizations, who may later sell further information about you to still more organizations, and so on.
To stop this snowballing invasion of your privacy, you have to get on the ``do-not-rent list'' of every company that rents names. Trying do this by yourself it would take lot of time and money, and you probably wouldn't be able to find every company with your name in their databases. (How would you find out who they all are?)
Like many others, we consider this an absurd situation, but it is the simple consequence of the presumption that your name can be sold unless you state otherwise. Nothing but a massive legislative effort will change this, and we don't want to wait for that to happen. You have already lost the right to choose whether to be on an organization's lists or not; the only choice left is whether you want your record to say do not rent.
Many direct marketing companies already know far more about you than you would probably be comfortable to find out; what they may not know is whether you know how to say no.
Privacy
is not the same as anonymity (which almost nobody truly has these days).
The
definition
formulated in 1967 by scholar
Privacy ...is the claim of individuals... to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others...Do you want to determine for yourself what information about you is communicated to others? Most people do, but how would you be able to achieve this? We think it would be extremely difficult to control junk communications without telling companies what you permit.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided that ``a mailer's right to communicate must stop at the mailbox of an unreceptive addressee.'' You are not denying anyone the right to say anything; you are just denying them the opportunity to say it to you.
It may not be a good idea to ask the post office to forward the mail to anyone else. The US Postal Service tells us you can write the word ``deceased'' on the front of the envelope and to place it back in your mailbox for the carrier to pick up. You do not have to put new stamps on the articles, as long as you don't open them.
Direct marketers also buy lists of names of the deceased and remove them from their mailing lists, so much of the junk mail will stop automatically. Unfortunately most take a few months to stop the mail, and some articles occasionally arrive for years afterwards. The bereaved often find these reminders distressing. To put an end to them, you may be able to use a Prohibitory Order (USPS Form 1500). The back of the form states in the third paragraph: ``If the addressee is a deceased person whose mail you are entitled to receive, you may apply for an order in the deceased's name.''
Our founding principle is that people should generally get only the messages that they want to receive. Most forms of advertising don't obey that principle. We hope that if people like what we are doing, they will tell others they think would also be interested, and these referrals will give us enough clients to be effective. We hope we won't have to resort to advertising, because it's contrary to our purpose. So if you like us and know someone else who might, please tell them, because we don't plan to bug them.
In addition to revenue from book sales, consulting, and licensing our software to companies, we also fund our operations by charging direct marketers for copies of non-published DECLARATIONs. This is information that you've specifically asked us to tell them about, so we are happy to do it. And unlike most information that direct marketers pay for, it is under your control, and it influences them to behave in the way that you want them to.
Some people who want to receive absolutely no solicitations are surprised that direct marketers might pay to learn this fact. But there are two good reasons why. A piece of junk mail costs more than a dollar on average, and if you just toss it away the sender has wasted a dollar. Also, people who are likely to issue a prohibitory order are worth some effort to avoid pestering.
Direct marketers are the greatest economic rationalists in the world. (And we're not just saying that to be nice.) When they hear a sales pitch, they know exactly how to cut through the puffery and sweet-talk and get straight to the value being offered, because that's the business they're in. It wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference if we called them a bunch of... well, there's no need to belabor the point.
All that matters to them here are whether they can save money by not sending their mail to people who wouldn't buy, and whether they can find more people who are interested in their products. JUNKBUSTERS DECLARATIONs give them the information they need to do these things, without invading your privacy and giving them legal headaches. These are the reasons they will decide to work with us, not because we tell them we love them. And when they do it, everyone will be better off: you, them, us, and the environment.
If our tone sounds slightly mocking at times, that's only to point out in a less monotonous way that the methods that direct marketers have had to use in the past could be improved. We are not against direct marketing in principle: the whole purpose of our company is to change how it is done, to a way that consumers like better and which is safer for everyone.
No. We considered this option, but decided against it for several reasons, not least because we thought that raising funds for a non-profit would have been beyond our selling abilities. Plus we actually do like the idea of making a profit, provided that the money comes from companies, not consumers. Also, we don't think the public would necessarily be best served by a single non-profit corporation. They aren't always as easy to run as for-profit corporations, especially internationally. Finally, if the idea of this kind of agency becomes popular, others will spring up (some perhaps started with friendly funding from direct marketers), and we will want to be able to compete with them on a commercial basis.
Fair question, given all the color and movement that most webmasters seem to consider necessary to keep their public entertained. We assume that our clients can find and read what they need, and that have more important things to do with their time than stare at a screen waiting for a lot of gratuitous graphical ornaments to download. We're not aiming to create a cool place to hang out and receive the latest advertising impressions. We are trying to provide a convenient service for people who would like to get on with their lives without a constant barrage of unwelcome intrusions.
Home · Next · Site Map · Legal · Privacy · Cookies · Banner Ads · Telemarketing · Mail · Spam · Opt OutCopyright © 1996-2005 Guidescope Inc ®. Copying and distribution permitted under the GNU General Public License. 2005/01/15 http://www.junkbusters.com/faqs.html