4 ms·
I view privacy policies as worthless. They don’t exist to protect the consumer‘s privacy. They only exist to shield the service provider from liabilities. In th
by austincheney 6y ago
I view privacy policies as worthless. They don’t exist to protect the consumer‘s privacy. They only exist to shield the service provider from liabilities. In that case privacy policies serve no valid consumer facing function why bother the consumer with them in the first place?
I, as a consumer, would prefer to not bother with this stupidity knowing I have virtually no privacy online and cannot sue the service provider for privacy violations except in cases of provable negligence. Since that applies to consumers whether or not they agree with it don’t waste the effort with the privacy notice. Save it for my lawyer.
If, as consumers, we actually wanted privacy we would pressure our law makers to write privacy law like HIPAA or the Federal Privacy Act of 1974.
- devin 6y agoI agree. Why do we even call it a "privacy policy"? It's more of a waiver.
- Avicebron 6y agoBecause people don't like the idea of "waiving their rights"
- rurp 6y agoWell sure, but if naming something more accurately causes people to reject it because it sounds really bad, I don't think the issue is with the naming.
- Avicebron 6y agoI fully agree and wasn't trying to justify the enforcement of long obtuse contracts that support the degradation of privacy.
- tekknik 6y agobecause it’s their policy on user privacy? the name makes perfect sense.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y ago> They only exist to shield the service provider from liabilities. In that case privacy policies serve no valid consumer facing function why bother the consumer with them in the first place? Because the consumers bother the companies with lawsuits if they aren't "forced" "to read" the privacy policy. The only way you can get away from the requirement to display these policies prominently is if you make it generally illegal to sue over anything disclosed in the privacy policy, even if it's not prominently displayed. Or, as you say, make the kinds of things people like to sue for actually illegal, so there will be nothing to disclose.
- austincheney 6y agoIt sounds like you are arguing for tort reform. They can sue anyways regardless of whether they read the policy and regardless of whether the suit is groundless. All it takes to create a law suit is to issue a motion to the court. Whether or not the suit is frivolous is for the court to decide in response to an opposing motion.
- asdfasgasdgasdg 6y agoI wouldn't say I'm arguing for it. I don't have any real problem with the status quo as it pertains to privacy policies. I'm just saying IF you have a problem with privacy policies, it needs to be very inexpensive to defend lawsuits on privacy grounds which are currently defensible only due to privacy policies.
- tekknik 6y agoThere is a great many of us who don’t use certain sites for privacy reasons. What happened here where Facebook was required to provide a service? Could you not avoid your entirely valid concern altogether by just not using the service? Why do these types of posts end up going the entitled route? You as a consumer have options for these luxury services, don’t use them and they’ll change.