3 ms·
Yes. Differences between legislations is one thing that's making the task harder. I think it's better to focus to what the terms actually state. But I always ke
by hugoroy 14y ago
Yes. Differences between legislations is one thing that's making the task harder. I think it's better to focus to what the terms actually state. But I always keep in mind the jurisdiction under which the company operates as it can influence the meaning of the terms.
However I'd fear to get to the other extreme and to end up making a rating system saying which legislation is better than the other. It's not the scope.
One other thing: we think the terms should be self-explanatory. I don't think services should expect their users to know the EU data protection law. So it would seem smart for me that the services makes a statement about them in their terms (just like they state details about their security practices for instance).
- Flimm 14y agoShouldn't "Defending your privacy in US Congress" be out of scope as well, then? It certainly isn't part of a website's terms and conditions. Plus, it's hard to judge how well those activities are going, and how committed the company is in pursuing those activities in the future.
- hugoroy 14y agoYou're right. I was actually unsure at the time. The data comes from the EFF.
- rmc 14y agoI can see why you don't want to have dozens of different "In juristicion X" and then rank them, but I suggest including EU law, since it includes a large amount of pro-user stuff, and would be an easy way to know what you can do. You're already including references to the US Congress, why not let us EU citizens have something too?