dslreports logo
Can 'Truste' Be Trusted?
As they expand into spamming 'seals of approval'
Truste offers websites seals of approval if they comply to the company's privacy standards. The problem, as Ben Edelman recently pointed out, is that Truste doesn't bother to enforce their own standards, making the seals somewhat meaningless. Netscape outsourced privacy ratings to Truste and got assailed, after companies like Direct Revenue and Hotbar were given the seal of approval. Now Truste has come out with an anti-spam seal of approval; but is enforcement again going to be a problem?
view:
topics flat nest 
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04

Premium Member

About as much as Verisign; maybe less

-- B

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102

Premium Member

Wrong Question

The correct question should be:

Who ever trusted Truste?
old_wiz_60
join:2005-06-03
Bedford, MA

old_wiz_60

Member

Re: Wrong Question

Trust no one!

Dark Fiber
evil in your savage eye
Premium Member
join:2005-01-23
Caldwell, ID

Dark Fiber to pnh102

Premium Member

to pnh102

Re: Can 'Truste' Be Trusted?

Remember:

a Truste is still a con!

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Truste like BBB Seal of Approval: means nothing

A seal of approval means nothing without enforcement. These seals of approval just means that the applying company filled out all the paperwork correctly. They are given out to anyone who goes to the bother to apply and sends in the fee.

MIABye
Premium Member
join:2001-10-28
united state

MIABye

Premium Member

Re: Truste like BBB Seal of Approval: means nothing

The BBB does not have time to check out all these businesses. The enforcement comes from people filing complaints to the BBB. Unfortunately not enough people complain when there is a problem because they have the it won't make a difference mentality.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Trust Us...

People, people, such jaded cynics you all are. Don't you know that industry can be trusted to police itself? I mean, come on, do we really need the Truste seal of approval? Just trust the vendors, fer cryin' out loud!

We don't need anything but the pretty blue Truste logo just like we don't really need an SEC chief like Cox to enforce any laws because as we've all seen, the corporations police themselves - Enron, WorldCon, Xerox, they all performed outstandingly when it came to policing their books!

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

1 edit

kapil

Member

What about taking responsibility??

I like Ben. I really do. And I admire the work he does...someone has to fight the good fight. I do think, however, that he spends an awful lot of time trying to place blame instead of emphasizing that security begins at home.

To be sure, there is a lot of blame that, rightfully so, needs to be placed squarely upon the companies that are out there sending spam or writing malicious code/spyware. But, when did it become someone else's job to protect my network?

All I'm saying is that in this point-and-click Microsoft world, people think that network security is as easy as running an install wizard. It's not.

There is a very good reason all us I.T. folk are making the "big bucks". Not one computer at my work has been infected with a virus since the Nimda/Code Red days. Never have we had a spyware infestation.

I also run a fairly large and complex (for a home network) network at home...and I have never had any of the issues that keep Ben up at night.

Sometimes the world is upside down because Google is making money off spyware vendor ads or because TrustE can't be trusted...bust mostly it's because the PEBKAC.

If you're not smart enough to navigate the roadways...take a cab. If you're not smart enough to maintain a PC...use an appliance like WebTV or something.

Always blaming others for your lack of skills in defending your turf is kinda' like suing McD's for coffee that is too hot.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by kapil:

Always blaming others for your lack of skills in defending your turf is kinda' like suing McD's for coffee that is too hot.
That might be an appropos analogy except you don't know the full details of that case. What you read in the media was a sensationalized account and the facts -as always- were not included. Just the part about the old lady spilling coffee and wanting $10M.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

kapil

Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

You're right...we don't know all the facts. But I do think that we got the most important ones....namely:

1. Lady spills coffee on herself.
2. Lady is mad for, due to her own stupidity, burning herself with the hot coffee.
3. Lady refuses to move on with life, sues McD's for making hot coffee, you know, HOT!.

There is absolutely NO scenario which includes the three points above that would result in the lady deserving millions of dollars.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by kapil:

There is absolutely NO scenario which includes the three points above that would result in the lady deserving millions of dollars.
Wow. You missed your calling in life. Obviously your superior psychic skills have been vastly overlooked. You really ought to volunteer yourself out when it comes to deciding verdicts. You wouldn't even have to show up for jury duty. You could just use your psychic skills and decide ahead of time without even hearing the FACTS of the case.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

kapil

Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

LOL. Funny you say that. I used to be a phone psychic for one of those 900 numbers. It was a fun job...usually it was women who wanted to know if their guy was cheatint on them, or if they will ever get back together with the guy they broke up with...or guys who wanted to know if the girl was pregnant

About the other thing. I am not on a jury...if I were, I would be obligated to decide the case based on the facts presented..and I would discharge my duty with the seriousness such a matter deserves. But like I said, I can think of no chain of events that starts with spilling hot coffee that would end in millions of dollars worth of actual or punitive damage. If you have any ideas on how that might work...I'm all ears

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

Google is your friend

Ahh, the old "Hot Coffee" anecdote. And I'm not talking about GTA: San Andreas.

You are overlooking a lot of the facts in the case though, but you can read them here:

»www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
»www.centerjd.org/free/my ··· alds.htm
»lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
»www.answers.com/topic/mc ··· fee-case

And yes, I've spilled hot coffee on my lap before too, but not a brew that was 190°F.
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04 to kapil

Premium Member

to kapil
What's wrong with you? We DO know all the facts. It's a court case, for crying out loud.

I was enjoying your PEBKAC essay until you fell back on that crusty false urban myth.

The woman, a passenger in a stopped car, was SEVERELY (third degree) BURNED, and McDonald's own quality assurance manager testified that McDonald's served coffee at temperatures unfit for human consumption. That made them completely liable, and I'm surprised they weren't penalized a great deal more.

This has been amply documented at »www.snopes.com/legal/law ··· uits.asp

and at

»caoc.com/facts.htm for years now.

Hell, just Google on "coffee mcdonalds" and you'll find reams of links!

-- B

pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium Member
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD

pnh102 to kapil

Premium Member

to kapil
said by kapil:

You're right...we don't know all the facts. But I do think that we got the most important ones....namely:

1. Lady spills coffee on herself.
2. Lady is mad for, due to her own stupidity, burning herself with the hot coffee.
3. Lady refuses to move on with life, sues McD's for making hot coffee, you know, HOT!.

There is absolutely NO scenario which includes the three points above that would result in the lady deserving millions of dollars.
Looks like this is going to be one of the few times we agree on something! It doesn't matter how hot the coffee was, anyone who was stupid enough to put a hot coffee cup between her legs doesn't deserve a cent. Someone should have sued her for being an idiot.

Even if the coffee was too hot, you could always let the friggin' stuff cool down before getting into contact with it!

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

2 edits

POB

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by pnh102:

Even if the coffee was too hot, you could always let the friggin' stuff cool down before getting into contact with it!
That is both an incredibly subjective as well as ignorant statement. The old woman didn't spill it between her legs. She had third degree burns in her throat from the coffee she drank because it was served at a temp of 130° F. Take your personal responsibility and tell it to the parents who have children who become brain damaged from faulty innoculations approved by the FDA or otherwise injured by negligent hospitals. It just don't work in that scenario, either, jack. But you want to apply it to a legal case you know nothing about other than what you read in the mainstream media. Because the newspapers would never sensationalize a story JUST to sell papers, would they. In fact, you believe EVERYTHING you read because it's the truth and nothing but and that is what allows you to arbitrarily and capriciously apply your philosophy of personal responsibility.
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??


major, I'm on your side here but you're getting the facts wrong... Check any of the links I or tapeloop gave above...
There is a lot of hype about the McDonalds' scalding coffee case. No
one is in favor of frivolous cases of outlandish results; however, it is
important to understand some points that were not reported in most of
the stories about the case. McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was
scalding -- capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh
and muscle. Here's the whole story.

Stella Liebeck of Albuquerque, New Mexico, was in the passenger seat of
her grandson's car when she was severely burned by McDonalds' coffee in
February 1992. Liebeck, 79 at the time, ordered coffee that was served
in a styrofoam cup at the drivethrough window of a local McDonalds.

After receiving the order, the grandson pulled his car forward and
stopped momentarily so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her
coffee. (Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often
charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in
motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed
the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from
the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled
into her lap.

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next
to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full
thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin
areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she
underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement
treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.

McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications
at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.

Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists
with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat.
Unless of course you're talking about a different case.

-- B

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

POB

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by B04:

major, I'm on your side here but you're getting the facts wrong... Check any of the links I or tapeloop gave above...

Thanks but I don't need to check your links. I've already the pleadings that were filed by counsel with the Court. That's why I know the facts of the case.
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

Really? That's cool. Are they available on-line somewhere? I've seen this same or similar write-up (the sweatpants et al.) in numerous places, and it would be interesting to find out that it's wrong... you know, if the Snopes urban legend debunking turns out be an urban legend itself... it would be interesting to see.

Kind of like the Dvorak v. QWERTY keyboard thing -- it turns out that there's no truth to the theory that the keys on QWERTY were placed to slow down typists.

(Personally I like the theory that the QWERTY layout enables one to type "typewriter" using a single row.)

-- B

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by B04:

(Personally I like the theory that the QWERTY layout enables one to type "typewriter" using a single row.)
I always thought that Smith and/or Corona liked it that way because they needed the A-W-D setup for Quake...
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??



»www.bdb.co.za/shackle/ar ··· iter.htm

I thought Smith was working with Wesson on that Quake thing anyway. The guy got around.

-- B

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

1 edit

tapeloop to POB

Premium Member

to POB
EDIT: ahh shoot. B beat me to it.

So yeah, what he said. Check your facts. Unless you like that dogmatic style of arguing.

kapil
The Kapil
join:2000-04-26
Chicago, IL

kapil

Member

I still maintain that personal responsibility MUST be a factor in network/computer security.

I meant to use the hot coffee analogy as a way to illustrate that personal responsibility is a trait that us Americans are finding harder and harder to find amongst us.

I posted without checking the facts of the actual case. I stand corrected. The specifics of that case aside, the general sentiment I was trying to convey is still just as valid.

POB
Res Firma Mitescere Nescit
Premium Member
join:2003-02-13
Stepford, CA

2 edits

POB

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by kapil:

I still maintain that personal responsibility MUST be a factor in network/computer security.

I agree on that count however companies need to be federally regulated to keep them from screwing over consumers. Without some kind of check, you get Enron, Worldcon, etc. All the computer security in the world won't protect you from unscrupulous vendors who are negligent in guarding personal data as it exists on their servers.

tapeloop
Not bad at all, really.
Premium Member
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One

tapeloop

Premium Member

Re: What about taking responsibility??

said by POB:
said by kapil:

I still maintain that personal responsibility MUST be a factor in network/computer security.

I agree on that count however companies need to be federally regulated to keep them from screwing over consumers. Without some kind of check, you get Enron, Worldcon, etc. All the computer security in the world won't protect you from unscrupulous vendors who are negligent in guarding personal data as it exists on their servers.

So in essence you're asking for corporate responsibility as a sort of quid pro quo for personal responsibility. Sounds sensible to me.
B04
Premium Member
join:2000-10-28

B04 to kapil

Premium Member

to kapil
said by kapil:

All I'm saying is that in this point-and-click Microsoft world, people think that network security is as easy as running an install wizard. It's not.

There is a very good reason all us I.T. folk are making the "big bucks". Not one computer at my work has been infected with a virus since the Nimda/Code Red days.

...

If you're not smart enough to navigate the roadways...take a cab. If you're not smart enough to maintain a PC...use an appliance like WebTV or something.
First, I apologize for the harshness at the beginning of my last post above.

Second, I appreciate your main points, but I think you're too easily glossing over a big contradiction. You acknowledge it takes a "big bucks" IT professional to properly secure a computer and/or network, but in the next breath you imply that the average computer user (like the average driver) should be "smart enough" to maintain his or her computer properly.

But THEY AREN'T and THEY CAN'T... and that's why you get the big bucks. It's not their fault, or yours or mine, it's just the nature of where we stand in computer evolution (i.e., its infancy). Some day, actual workable analogs to the do-nothing likes of TrustE and CANSpam and Verisign (and the semi-working likes of NAV and MSAntiSpyware and Windows and Unix themselves) will make computer security seamless for the average user. And yeah, it'll probably look something like WebTV mixed with LCARS.

-- B
bedelman0
Premium Member
join:2004-06-20
Cambridge, MA

bedelman0 to kapil

Premium Member

to kapil
There's no question that users should think before they click.

But an additional serious problem is that vendors are designing systems that encourage users to make bad decisions (e.g. Netscape 8's affirmative endorsement of "adware" vendors, or Microsoft's Windows Media Player popups that mix genuine security warnings [you really do need to update your DRM when first prompted] with bogus ActiveX adware installers [that say such updates are required, when they're not).

Then there are vendors who design their systems specifically to trick users. Remember Grokster installing two adware programs even when users press CANCEL upon seeing installation EULA. And vendors whose software becomes installed through security holes.

Finally, whatever degree of care we expect from adults and sophisticated users, I think most folks agree that kids can't be held to this standard. And of course it's no surprise that lots of vendors prey on kids' inexperience or naivete: Claria, 180solutions, Hotbar, Ask Jeeves.

So where does this leave us? I think most BBR readers would agree that there's a decent case for asking users to be that much more careful. But just because BBR readers are sophisticated and harder to trick doesn't mean we shouldn't take time to look at the scams, ploys, schemes, and tricks that are taking advantage of ordinary users, hurried users, careless users, new users, and kids. I make no apologies for having aspired to document and analyze these various unsavory situations.

CPM
Broadband, DSL, cable
join:2001-08-24
Denver, CO

CPM

Member

It is like BBB.

It is like Better Business Bureau. They only enforce paid company's or if a company has so many complaints against them, it is financial profitable to go after them.

With Trustie the company has to pay a fee to use there seal, so the customer can have a illusion of being safe with the company, that has the logo.

W7PSK
Just Me
Premium Member
join:2000-12-04
Everett, WA

W7PSK

Premium Member

I wouldnt trust Truste as far

As I can toss the Empire State Building.

Many spam operations have used truste and when reported usually nothing happens.

Not worth a dime they are.

Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium Member
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX

1 recommendation

Doctor Four

Premium Member

Truste cannot be trusted with your privacy

It is pretty much a given among privacy advocates that
whenever a site displays the Truste logo, it means that
the one thing you cannot trust is how they will handle
your privacy.

As for their new anti-spam deal of approval, watch
spammers start putting a disclaimer (Murk) in the body of
their messages indicating this; a lot like the
references to S.1618 or Can-Spam.
Admj
join:2001-01-17
Placentia, CA

Admj

Member

E-mail to Trust-E

Here's an e-mail to Trust-E, let's see how they respond!

I am a reader of DSLreports.com and noticed this article. But I'm concerned with purchasing products on websites that your company certifies as safe. Who can we trust if there is no enforcement of privacy and internet security?

Will your company side with spammers and spyware companies?

»www.benedelman.org/spyware/ns8/

»Can 'Truste' Be Trusted?

ADMJ@hotmail.com