3 ms·
I don't agree. I just looked in my password manager, and I have roughly ~220 accounts across the web. If I want to go through that list and see which website ra
by nickodell 7y ago
I don't agree. I just looked in my password manager, and I have roughly ~220 accounts across the web. If I want to go through that list and see which website rank well and which rank poorly, and I want to do that in under two hours, that gives about 30 seconds per service.
In other words, giving a single score plus a two-sentence highlight is probably about the right amount of information.
- m-p-3 7y agoOr make the rank adjustable to some personal criteria that matches different privacy expectations.
- drusepth 7y agoThis would also be helpful in determining how to weight (or not) user feedback in the training portion. I just tried it out (the 10 questions) and there were at least a few I thought, "huh, I know some others would disagree with me on this" because I value X and they value Y more. Having scores that weight X more than Y would give me more accurate scores, while seemingly also giving other people more accurate scores at the same time.
- crusty 7y agoHow about a compromise - not a score for each policy but for "each" individual, or tranche of similarly concerned individuals. I go through a list of privacy options (maybe just once) and the point at which my "okay" becomes "not okay" determines my score. Then each policy simply passes or fails based on my score. And if you want more detail, the list of failure items for a given policy can be bulleted.
- wtvanhest 7y agoA good compromise would be a chrome extension that shows a 1-10 score. You click the extension to see clauses
- trickstra 7y agoNot for everyone, as thecleaner pointed out. You are assuming your requirements are universal among other users. Also, you are assuming the policies can be simplified to a weighted average of their parts, which is not necessarily the case.