[TimW]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Interesting. People who were on Borders list supposedly were interested in and bought books. B&N sells books. Why the outrage over B&N but the willingness to be on Borders' list when Borders was alive?

More interesting, at least to me, however, is that book lovers/buyers are upset about B&N taking over the Borders email list but there is no similar outrage regarding Amazon's new Silk browser, which is integral to Amazon's new Fire tablet, and which tells Amazon what stores you shop at, what you buy at those stores, and what price you are willing to pay for your purchases at those stores. Seems to me that Amazon's Silk is much more intrusive and a greater violator of privacy than the B&N email list.

A discussion about Amazon is irrelevant in this particular topic.

The consumer rights ombudsman is involved in this case at the court's direction. He has two main issues with the email sent to consumers:

First, the Opt-Out Notice failed to alert Borders customers that the transferred PII [personally identifiable information] included not only customers’ names but e-mail addresses and purchase histories.The Opt-Out Notice merely refers to the Borders “customer list.” The Ombudsman believes that a Borders customer receiving the Opt-Out Notice referring only to the Borders “customer list” may reasonably assume that only his or her “name” (and perhaps e-mail address) was transferred to Buyer. But much more PII was transferred to Buyer, including each customer’s purchase history. The Ombudsman believes that this information is both relevant and material to a customer’s decision whether to opt out and have his or her PII purged by Buyer. The right to opt out is only meaningful if customers are provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision. Buyer’s failure to provide such relevant and material information in the Opt-Out Notice may defeat the very purpose of the notice.

Second, the Opt-Out Notice failed to inform Borders customer that the right to opt out was ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. Buyer’s failure to include this important information in the Opt-Out Notice conveys the incorrect impression that the right to opt out is a privilege offered to Borders customers out of the generosity of Buyer, rather than a right granted to them by this Court’s order. Because the inaction of Borders customers is tantamount to their consent to Buyer’s retention and use of their transferred PII, the perceived benevolence of Buyer may influence customers’ decisions. The Ombudsman believes the fact that the opt-out right was required by this Court’s order is relevant and material information that is necessary for an informed decision by Borders customers.

This was included in the ombudsman's supplemental report to the court.

Although the second point may seem nit-picky, the first point is troubling. Referring to a customer's entire purchase history as a "customer list" seems deceptive, at least to me. I'm not sure that the court will have a kindly view of B&N's "good intentions." We shall see.