Tactical, Operational & Strategic Analysis of Markets, Competitors & Industries
Dumptser Diving is illegal, without consent by owner. I realize there are grey zones here when the garbage is not on the person's property, but then it would be unethical in the great majority of cultures.
It has been a well know practice in Marketing and Marketing Research, as you know, for year and with consent I think it is not a problem. With consent it is a very powerful research tool, as we do not know/cannnot remember/answer falsely what we eat/buy when asked. Without consent from the person it has only been carried out systematically by the different state intelligence services, but then they have consent by their state authority . I think, as you indicate, that SCIP should not be assciated with such practices and make that very clear. If I was running an organization/company and someone posed in the media as related to that organization (true or not) saying such practices can be OK, I would persue the case further. Either way you turn it, as long as SCIP does not persue this, it simply looks like it has been sanctioned in the eyes of the great majority of Inc. readers.
It's an interesting question whether CI is more about looking for documents while as MR is more about looking at products/services. It also makes an interesting question for Marketing Intelligence. In my view it is more a question of the level and width we are operating at. CI handles the problem from a data/digit level and from an all-organization level. Intelligence does not distiguish from where the information comes from, if it is from products or documents, but if the information is truely useful, actionable. We also see that the marketing profession has been moving more towards documents and information with new technologies (CRM, faster computers, data mining etc), which again has paved the way for Market Intelligence. http://www.amazon.com/Market-Intelligence-Building-Strategic-Insigh...
Your second distinction I agree more with. State and Military Intelligence should be focused on saving lives if they want to defend their existence vis a vis tax payers. We see these debates blush up in different countries when politicians want to use their intelligence apparatus to gain a Competitive Advantage. Agents will then say things like "I do not want to die for GE" etc. The debate was also hot when Clinton used spies/eavesdroppeing in trade negotiations with ex. Japan. (see my dissertation).
RE: "Richard Horowitz does not actively or otherwise provide legal counsel on an outsourcing or any other basis to SCIP. His views are his own."
While it may be true that Horowitz is not actively providing counsel to SCIP, it is irrefutable that he did indeed help formulate the SCIP Code of Ethics and that he had a hand in other policy related matters. See here regarding the COE, a series of emails between Horowitz and the Chairman of SCIP's Ethics Committee Carl Ward back in 1999 : http://www.rhesq.com/CI/Code%20Correspondence.pdf
So, are you not aware of his history with SCIP and his involvement in the creation of the Code of Ethics? Wow, I mean here we have a man who assisted in the creation of the Code and who is publicly saying its OK to misrepresent oneself (see Klaus's posting) and also stipulating that digging through trash is OK legally- uh perhaps in some jurisdiction but not all, and what about ETHICALLY? Good God no wonder CI is having such a hard time as a profession and that SCIP is in such sad disrepute.
I'm with Klaus when he says "Well, I can imagine the PR situation at SCIP right now, not a comfortable situation to be be in. Accusations of lying, bad publicity, and what looks like a contradiction."
Well said, Klaus! Contradiction and bad publicity, indeed.