Hey guys. I am taking a marketing course at my University and we were assigned debate topics. Seeing as how this is a very intelligent community, I thought I'd ask you all for a bit of help. Here's the premise: Topic A Situation: Bally Ho Resorts keeps personal information on its customers, so it can serve these customers better when they are staying at one of the company's properties. Until recently, this information was retained in paper files in the assistant manager's office of the property where the customer stayed and access was very limited. Obviously, the information in these file was not readily available if the customer chose to stay at another of the company's properties, so two years ago the company had these files scanned and a database was created. This database could be searched by limited number of senior personnel with the company from anywhere as long as one had the proper access codes and access to the company's intranet system. Some of these files contained extremely personal and explicit details. Never, to the company's knowledge had any of this information been used for any purpose other than to provide the highest quality of personalized service to the company's patrons. However, a prominent royal with dual citizenship (U.S. and home country) learned of these records and brought suit in the U.S. (home of the company's corporate headquarters) to bar Bally Ho Resorts and other companies from retaining such personal information on customers. The suit is pending. Stated Position: It is acceptable for Bally Ho to collect personal information on its customers, so it can better market to them, i.e. satisfy their needs to influence their purchase decisions. My goal is to argue against the stated position. Do you all have any ideas of how I could attack this debate? I need to say that it is not acceptable for the resort to collect the information. What are your thoughts? I appreciate any and all input.
I can give you a little infomation on how the privacy laws work in Australia if your interested (depends on if its an ethcial debate or a legal one) Under our privacy laws there are certain obligations on any organisation (including goverment departments) who hold private infomation Firstly a person can request ALL infomation an organisation has on you specifically including medical records Secondly a company CANT give infomation on you to any other organisation or person without your written permission (this can be taken to far, like FUCKING POWER COMPANIES WHO WONT TALK TO ME BECAUSE THE ACCOUNT IS IN MY PARTNERS NAME, FUCKING origin) Thirdly they are criminally and civilally liable if there are definciancies in electronic security which alow details to be stolen Fourthly (and possably the most importantly) they cant gather or store any more infomation than is NESSARY. For instance it would be VERY hard for them to justify storing DOB and address if they are selling you some batteries paid by cash
