3 ms·
I think that comparison is very misleading because ingredient lists of food are not written by lawyers, they use very simple language, and they don't make you g
by freeflight 6y ago
I think that comparison is very misleading because ingredient lists of food are not written by lawyers, they use very simple language, and they don't make you give up all kinds of rights.
They are also not even remotely as extensive as privacy policies are. Case in point: Back in 2012 one already needed 76 workdays to read all the privacy policies accepted on the Internet in one year [0].
Since then that number has very likely gone extensively up as people use even more online-services on average, particularly on mobile devices, and a lot of these services now also have extensive codes of conduct in addition to the privacy policies and bloated ToS/EULAs.
So while reading the ingredients of everything you eat is a very realistic and plausible thing to do, something people with allergies do on a near-daily basis, trying the same with privacy policies is just not realistic. Particularly when one wants to read them in an informed way to actually understand what you are agreeing to [1], for that you would need a lawyer to read them with you to make sense of the convoluted legal-speak they are usually written in.
A fact that is pretty common knowledge to such a degree that companies have even written $10k rewards into their ToS for people actually reading them. [2]
That's why most privacy policies do not really exist to inform the users as food labeling does, their main purpose is for the company to cover their ass legally while doing all kinds of shady things with users' data.
[0] https://techland.time.com/2012/03/06/youd-need-76-work-days-to-read-all-your-privacy-policies-each-year/ https://techland.time.com/2012/03/06/youd-need-76-work-days-...
[1] https://www.cracked.com/article_19683_6-terrifying-user-agreements-youve-probably-accepted.html https://www.cracked.com/article_19683_6-terrifying-user-agre...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/701417140/when-not-reading-the-fine-print-can-cost-your-soul https://www.npr.org/2019/03/08/701417140/when-not-reading-th...
- marcus_holmes 6y agoTo be fair, ingredients labelling is covered by an extremely strict set of regulations, and companies do play games with it as much as they're able (my favourite is "aqua" when they mean "water"). Which may be the way to go: introduce a strict set of regulations covering how to present your privacy policy
- taejo 6y agoWriting "aqua" instead of "water" is not playing with the regulations, it is a regulation. In the US cosmetics have to be labelled using the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) and the INCI name for water is "aqua".
- marcus_holmes 6y agoah, thanks for that. I did not know that :)
- coronadisaster 6y agothere's a load of problems with food labeling requirements... for example, sometimes they use multiple kinds of sugars to make them appear lower on the ingredients list... But yeah, privacy policies should be required to include the important bits in a small table, maybe a bit smaller than the Nutrition Facts table on foods.
- Mirioron 6y agoDoesn't the label have to list the total amount of carbs though? Even if they list the sugars separately the carbs are what you care about anyway.