After reviewing Walmart’s Privacy Policy (PP), I have to say I was not particularly surprised of its content. Of course, I had just read Charles Ess’ and Spinello’s take on privacy policy. However, I was surprised to read that Walmart may be obtaining information about me from other sources. The explanation of what sources they use is rather vague. It includes “entities that can help us correct or supplement our records, improve the quality or personalization of our service to you, and help prevent or detect fraud”. Out of those three, I only find the third one truly acceptable. The first two (have accurate information and give me the best possible service) should be done only according to the information I am willing to provide.
Image source: http://tinyurl.com/95pqf6f
In regards to the information Walmart obtains, there is nothing in the list I have not given them myself at one point or another. However, I was surprised to find out Walmart uses web beacons.
The site justifies their privacy policy based on their business function. Examples include “order or service fulfillment, internal business processes, marketing, authentication, loss and fraud prevention, public safety and legal functions.” We could say that three (the last three) of these seven elements could be deontologically defended. Most people find fraud prevention, safety, and compliance to the law to be worthy reasons to sacrifice a certain level of privacy. The others have a business purpose, and therefore are acceptable in a utilitarian perspectives as their benefits are more than their costs.However, as Ess explains, one of the problems with digital information is that it is greased. It moves easily and fast through channels of communication. Walmart’s PP proudly says that the company “does not sell or rent … personal information to third parties”, and then goes on to list four paragraphs of exceptions. Oh well.
The site also explains under what circumstances they use and opt-in or opt-out approach when it comes to using saved information.
Looking at the big picture, I do feel comfortable with Walmart’s privacy policy. I hope they will not prove me wrong. However, if I chose to not engage in e-commerce with them, I feel like my option is to go to a similar retailer or service provider whose privacy policy is probably going to run along the same ethical lines.
How difficult/easy was it for you to read through Walmart.com’s privacy policy? You mentioned they used vague language and had four paragraphs of exceptions. How confident are you that you really understand exactly what will happen with your data? Do you think ecommerce sites have an ethical duty to make privacy policies easier for the ordinary person to understand?
I found that, like USPS and other e-commerce sites, Walmart offers a shorter “highlights” of its PP, and gives the reader the option of reading the full document. Both of those were not hard to read, at least for a college student. However, easy to understand does not mean it gives one the full picture of the information obtained and the ways it is used. Although as a user I like to be able to read the privacy statements of the companies I interact with, I also understand that as relations among clients and companies become more complex, it is difficult to make explicit the details of all the information exchanged. Today, I feel that privacy policies posted online work more as a disclaimer than as an honest intent to communicate information management principles to costumers.
So in your opinion, is it ethical for companies to give disclaimers, rather than more fully communicating their intent?
Well, looking at it from a relational perspective, I wish all my relations were disclaimer free. Why? Because I want to feel like they care about protecting me and not that they are doing whatever is necessary just to protect themselves (a company in this case). However, the nature of business relations is usually far from caring about the other person. For a company, what they MUST do (in other words, the ethical thing to do) is to let costumers know what they are doing. Even if it is to say “we did tell you” whenever something goes wrong. So, yes, I do think it is ethical to give a disclaimer considering the real life setting.
Still, I should say that giving a disclaimer doesn’t necessarily mean they are up to something. So, why wouldn’t it be ethical if they truly mean well and they are just covering their bases?