Greg wrote earlier about ZKS' Managed Privacy services:
what I wonder about with this is where ZKS' loyalties will appear to be. Consumers probably want to see their privacy software vendor as "on their side"; but commercial interests working on data collection are probably going to want to work with people who will help them advance their own goals, sometimes at the price of others' privacy.
Well ZKS should have an interest maintaining a good reputation for acting in the interests of users privacy. Companies who use such services should also have an interest in using services of companies with good privacy reputations -- as this would tend to give better consumer confidence in the resulting systems.
The closest parallel I can see is to environmental groups, who have in some cases endorsed certain corporations or certain practices as "green" or "environmentally friendly", and who have subsequently lost stature among some of their members and peers as having "sold out". I don't know if it will work well to be perceived as serving two masters - even if the corporate interests pay lip service to "protecting our customers' privacy".
I guess the only answers are maintaining professionalism, and integrity and to maintain a strong stance on users privacy, with clear long term objectives (avoiding short-sighted small incremental improvements which may stay for a long time just because of the fact that built working systems don't get replaced as long as they continue to function). Openness would be a guiding principle too I would think -- so that users and technology critics can analyse and criticize the systems. Transparent functioning is a huge win for privacy. Adam