Northwest Privacy Lawsuit Dismissed

dritan writes "News.com is reporting that a judge has tossed out a privacy lawsuit against Northwest airlines. The plaintiffs claimed that their privacy was violated when Northwest gave their information to the government. From the judge: 'Although Northwest had a privacy policy for information included on the Web site, plaintiffs do not contend that they actually read the privacy policy prior to providing Northwest with their personal information. Thus, plaintiffs' expectation of privacy was low.' Do you always read the privacy policy?" If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either? Here is the Judge's order (PDF).

Comments

Insane

[mccalli]

By the same rationale, since they had not actually read every law book in the land their expectations of justice were low...

Cheers,
Ian

Re:Insane

[LV-427]

Reminds me of the Steve Martin bit:

"You say, 'Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?' Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language ... 'I forgot.' How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say, 'I forgot'? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal'."

Read?

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Northwest had a privacy policy for information included on the Web site, plaintiffs do not contend that they actually read the privacy policy prior to providing Northwest with their personal information.

Come on, this is Slashdot. We don't even read articles (sometimes even the blurbs!), let alone privacy policies. Well, except for the dedicated Tin Foil Hat Brigade.

Re:Using 9/11 to justify anything?

[andreMA]

Are we still in the wake of the terrorist attacks?

Of course we are. We've always been at war with Eurasia.

Re:Using 9/11 to justify anything?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we've always been allies with Eurasia, we've been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Using 9/11 to justify anything?

[spoonyfork]

The whole point of the War on Terror is to protect our system of law... letting it to start going down the slippery slope towards an opressive system is exactly the way the terrorists want to push us.

We're having a real fucking good war with Iraq, under God. Why do you hate freedom?

So in the USA...

[IWannaBeAnAC]

... you have zero "expectation of privacy" unless you explicitly accept a contract to the contrary?

Does this mean I should require someone to sign a contract before I give them my telephone number?

Re:Government favoratism by courts.

[emc]

Where is JonKatz when you need him...

Re:Government favoratism by courts.

[Tony-A]

Which means that ultimately you must depend on the honor and reputation of the company.

Which is why I'd choose Google over Microsoft regardless of whatever is or isn't in any Privacy Statement. Google might sell me out, but I don't think they'd do it cheaply.

Privacy policies, in a nutshell

[Samrobb]

At least, as practiced by Ubersoft.

How to Get Stuff Free

[serutan]

I wonder if this would work:

When you sign a purchase contract, staple a note to it containing 3 pages of legal verbiage. Somewhere near the bottom say, "customer reserves the right to void any terms of this contract at any time, and/or withhold payment for an indefinite period of time while assessing the value of the product or service." Then when the collections people come knocking, show them the contract with your clause highlighted and tell them to have a nice day.