4 ms·

You are assuming that a Privacy Policy is legally binding, it's generally accepted as not being. In the example, Amazon can do whatever it wants with the data.

by dm2 11y ago

You are assuming that a Privacy Policy is legally binding, it's generally accepted as not being. In the example, Amazon can do whatever it wants with the data. Data submitted to almost anyone online (maybe with the exception of large companies or companies specifically designed to not track data) should be considered public unfortunately. I have seen some states recently put in place laws to protect this data from being made public or sold carelessly, but for the most part it is unregulated as far as I can tell.

edwhitesell 11y ago
While I agree that it's probably not legally binding (I beleive even the standard "Click and connect" contracts have been thrown out of courts in the past), do you have any references to share?
- dm2 11y ago
  I haven't looked for any precedent cases. TRUSTe was suppose to do something similar, but it's seal doesn't mean much anymore (not that it ever really did). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRUSTe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRUSTe Medical records, children's data, and sensitive financial data is protected under US law. US-EU Safe Harbor has some consumer data protection rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_informa... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Applicable_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Applicable_law
Retra 11y ago
In a discussion about policy, you should never use terms like "generally accepted" and "should be considered" to refer to the reality that is already under question. It's extremely confusing. The fact that your data isn't protected can't be used as an argument that it shouldn't be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, either.
cjslep 11y ago
> You are assuming that a Privacy Policy is legally binding, it's generally accepted as not being. I'm not claiming privacy policies are legally binding, just that they can be an indicator of trustworthiness and integrity. That's what I really meant when I said "[Option #1] would breach customer expectations because they are outright lying." The way I read mc32's "I think there's a difference" is moral difference, because I share the same sentiment as him or her ("I hope the FTC wins its case...") which would turn that moral difference into a legally binding one.

by dm2 11y ago

edwhitesell 11y ago

While I agree that it's probably not legally binding (I beleive even the standard "Click and connect" contracts have been thrown out of courts in the past), do you have any references to share?

dm2 11y ago
I haven't looked for any precedent cases. TRUSTe was suppose to do something similar, but it's seal doesn't mean much anymore (not that it ever really did). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRUSTe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRUSTe Medical records, children's data, and sensitive financial data is protected under US law. US-EU Safe Harbor has some consumer data protection rules. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_information#United_States_of_America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personally_identifiable_informa... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Applicable_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privacy_policy#Applicable_law

Retra 11y ago

In a discussion about policy, you should never use terms like "generally accepted" and "should be considered" to refer to the reality that is already under question. It's extremely confusing. The fact that your data isn't protected can't be used as an argument that it shouldn't be. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, either.

cjslep 11y ago

> You are assuming that a Privacy Policy is legally binding, it's generally accepted as not being. I'm not claiming privacy policies are legally binding, just that they can be an indicator of trustworthiness and integrity. That's what I really meant when I said "[Option #1] would breach customer expectations because they are outright lying." The way I read mc32's "I think there's a difference" is moral difference, because I share the same sentiment as him or her ("I hope the FTC wins its case...") which would turn that moral difference into a legally binding one.