privacy
Lots of people are scared to move forward with anything that could be misinterpreted as a privacy risk. This fear is reinforced if they go to the lawyers and say "we want to do this" and the lawyers say "you can't, we'll be sued." What the lawyers don't understand is that privacy is a PR problem, not a legal problem. I'll explain.
Hundreds of years ago (don't you love it when explanations go back that far, and take on a condescending tone to boot), a guy named John Locke invented the concept of the social contract. Governments are obligated to their citizens to provide certain protections (police, school, hospital) in exchange for those citizens giving up certain rights (the right to litter, the right to speed, etc). This is a social contract, and is sealed in place by laws and courts.
Customers have a similar contract with the companies they puchase things from. At the essence, I give up the right to keep $15.00 in my bank account, and Amazon gives up the right to keep a certain CD in their inventory. There is something more subtle going on too when you look at the exchange of information, which is extroardinarily hard to establish value for. You could argue that it is so useful to Amazon as a marketing tool to know both my zip code and what music I like, that they should pay ME for that information. However, that is not the custom, so here we are, steeped in tradition of cash for goods provided.
When a company comes under enhanced scrutiny about privacy, they have created the impression that they have not provided a reasonable exchange of goods or value compared to the value of the personal information the customer gives up. Note the use of "created the impression." This does not mean that anyone has broken the law, or that anyone will or will not win in court over this type of incident. It just means there was a disparity of customer expectation. Listening to lawyers, who will only advise on whether or not someone can sue someone else, will not improve the rough relationship companies have had with their customers ever since the information age began. In fact, to improve the situation, we need to listen less to our lawyers and more to our customers, our PR people, and the press.
The fact is, if we present a reasonable return of goods or services in exchange for personally identifiable information, we will meet and exceed customer expectations and allow that service to innovate, evolve and expand. We can't put our heads in the sand just because there's a zip code in the IP packet, and assume everyone will think we're bad guys. The fact is, if we're respectful and generous, and not hard of hearing, we'll do just fine.
If you get to a situation where you have lawyers telling you to abandon something you know is a good idea, try the following:
1) Get a second opinion. Do you think you'll be raked over the coals? Ask David Pogue. Ask Walt Mossberg. Ask Richard Smith. If they're on your side, you'll be fine.
2) Provide a service. This means concentrate on providing something really valuable to the person giving up the info. A free CD is a good thing. Advanced file management is a good thing. A customized ad is not a good thing. Use common sense.
3) Make sure your work is opt-in. This should trump anything the lawyers have to say about it. If the customers go and check the box, and fill in the info, then nothing has happened by accident and you're covered.
This entire issue is becoming extremely relevant as all our media goes digital, and all our work goes informational. I just hope we don't stop innovating because no one has figured out how to inject common sense into the privacy equation.