3 ms·
Dataium does this too, as covered by WSJ's recent article on the subject [1] The article goes into depth about how much personal information is sent along to a
by dskhatri 14y ago
Dataium does this too, as covered by WSJ's recent article on the subject [1]
The article goes into depth about how much personal information is sent along to advertisers including a popular dating site's apparently anonymized information about drug use, and sexual orientation.
I think we need a non-profit service that defines a set of privacy licenses (akin to CreativeCommons' licenses) which companies can opt to label their websites/apps with. There would be no policing/auditing [2], but companies found to violate the privacy licenses would be obliged to donate a sum to an organization like the EFF.
That the privacy policies would be encompassed by one simple privacy licence badge would allow users to quickly and easily identify a company's privacy policies. I believe users would gravitate toward using services that display this license.
Edit: it appears such a service is in the works - http://privacycommons.org http://privacycommons.org
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324784404578143144132736214.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142412788732478440457814...
[2] The auditing process would likely become complex, costly and corruptible
- yk 14y agoI like the idea, but unfortunately the damage is already done, when you see a site without a privacy badge. (Since the browser did already execute any JS/ send headers etc.) But perhaps there could be a plugin like noscript, that searches for a given privacy settings on the site and allows/blocks JS and third party content. ( If there is no widespread use of the plugin, then noone will include the privacy badge, if there is widespread use, then there is a strong icentive to abuse the badge. So one would need some way to really enforce the privacy badge...)