Slashdot Mirror
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).
So it's okay to break a clause in your contract, as long as you contend that the other person probably didn't thoroughly read the contract? That's absurd. Especially in a country where ignorance of the law does not justify breaking the law. You should be required to uphold your contracts if both parties have agreed to them, whether nor not both people took the time to read each and every sentence of it (if they didn't, that's their problem). Further, how can they prove that the other party did not read the EULA?
the judge basically just told that "hey, the next guy that sues 'em should say that he read the statement".
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
When Southwest posts a privacy policy they should be bound by it. Saying that they don't have to bound to what they said in (virtual) writing because people didnt actually read the policy does not excuse Northwest, or others, from their obligations.
By this logic we could say that parents who have children born with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome can sue all of the beer companies because "no one reads those warning labels by the Surgeon General/Government anyway."
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?
EULAs are non-binding anyway. Anyone who thinks he can impose additional terms after the point of sale is either an idiot, or is counting on his customers being idiots.
If you bought a TV and when you got home and opened the box the TV had a sticker over the power button saying, "By turning on this TV, you agree never to watch content not approved by XYZ Inc," would you be under the delusion that that was legally binding? Of course not, because you weren't born yesterday.
(Terms agreed to as part of the sale itself are another matter, but they still have limits.)
I think this case only involved plantiffs who booked through the website and are trying to get the web site's privacy policy to apply to their whole transaction. Those who book through other ways would not have been presented with a privacy policy from Northwest at all, and therefore would have nothing to point to and say that NW broke a promise...
That should certainly slow those Indian call centres down to five or six bookings per staff member per day...
No.. because EULAs and Privacy policies in general are non-binding. A contract for a car, loan, mortgages, etc ARE binding in court.
Hmmm.
I think one potentially good thing this ruling does point out is just how much of a joke the so-called "privacy policy" of any given company really is.
if it's not a contarct then it's PR, which means it's advertising.
So why sue NW over false advertising?
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?
No, because a privacy policy dictates customer expectations while an EULA dictates vendor expectations. A person is expected to abide by a contract they agree to whether they read it or not. Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.
Developers: We can use your help.
What is the lesser of the 2 evils, Pushing some minor rights to the side or ensuring another 9/11 doesn't happen.
And exactly how is giving NASA my credit card number going to prevent another 9/11?
If you did not read it, you can't have agreement, and hence no contract.
Oh no, nuh uh, no way. If you can prove you're understanding of the contract you signed was intentionally hindered in some way by the other party, you can break the contract and get out. If, on the other hand, you are given a contract, given the opportunity to read and understand it, and you willfully choose to waive those opportunities, that's your own problem. If that wasn't the case, I could just go out to the bank, sign a contract for a loan, default, and argue that I didn't read it, so I'm under no obligation to repay the money.
A contract is a record of agreement based on the faith of the two parties involved. You can only break it if you can prove one or the other is acting in bad faith. Being stupid is not bad faith, it's just being stupid, and it's not the other person's fault.
This is a really bad ruling. It's basically saying that you have no reason to expect that a second party is going to do what they say whether you read and understood what they said or not. This, in effect, says that privacy policies don't mean jack shit and nobody is obligated to follow them.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
It's a death by a thousand cuts; a few minor rights here, a few minor rights there. Pretty soon, you have no rights left at all. With the Patriot Act (on top of previous minor rights reductions), the 4th Amendment has been practically eviscerated.
What a truly awful analogy. Minor children have limited rights and parents have guardianship over them.
The government is not our mother or father, nor should we ever want or allow it to be.
So you would toss your kid's room, destroying trust and putting significant strain on your relationship rather then waiting to see if kid smelled like smoke often? Or even just smelling the kid's hand?
Under the theory of social contract that our government was formed, they have the duty use the least restrictive solution to any problem. "Pushing some minor rights to the side" as you called it, is not only shortsighted, it's poisonous.
We are always going to be in danger. But in 20 years, who would you rather be in danger from: some random-ass religious zealot, or your own government?
one of these days I'm gonna patent the technology that lets Jason Vorhees catch up to cars by moving at a slow walk.
I'm reading TFA. It says this:
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
So, which procedure would it be, exactly, that says that contractual obligations are null and void on one party's behalf if the other party doesn't explicitly say they read the contract? If this were flipped and the contract said something, they signed it, and now they were pissed because they're being held to something they didn't bother to read, that would be different. But these people are saying 'look, the contract we signed says this, they did this something else', so obviously somebody at some point must have read it to know this. So, just because they didn't expclicitly state they read that (mind you, the plaintiffs didn't break any portion of the agreement), the OTHER PARTY isn't obligated to fulfill it's own duties?
Sorry. But I call "Legal Bullshit" unless you can tell me what "procedure" it is that states that if I don't read something but still follow my obligations that the other party can just break it's end of the bargain whenever it wants.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
So basically the judge just ruled that privacy policies are unenforeable, non-binding and even if they're violated there is no real harm done. Wow, makes one wonder why companies even bother putting them up.
Of course anyone who have had the pleasure of being a customer of one of the several online merchants who have chosen to update their privacy policies, could have told you the same without a lawsuit.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Fact of the matter though to the people in office its not that simple. When you hold office you have to look at it from multiple points of view.
What is the lesser of the 2 evils, Pushing some minor rights to the side or ensuring another 9/11 doesn't happen.
False dilemma. Why does NASA need your credit card information? Does that help prevent another 9/11? Maybe it does, but that's why we have warrants: to demonstrate a need for otherwise private information.
We voted these people into office, they are doing what we asked them to do.. Serve and Protect us to the best of there ability.
Does that involve violating our "minor" 4th Amendment rights?
That's just a bizarre ruling. I mean, just because you don't read the fine print doesn't mean you can't assume some things are in there.
If a customer not reading a privacy policy means it's void, we've got a real problem. I could see websites figuring out how long a person looked at a privacy policy, or if they even clicked on one, and then selling their information willy-nilly if they think the customer didn't.
Honestly, these privacy policies (and EULAs) are legal constructs anyway, I think there ought to be some regulation of these things (after all, the government is required to enforce them).
What I'd like to see is simple 'ratings' for privacy policies. you could call them A, B, C, level 1-9 whatever. And they would correspond to specific guidelines indicating what you can and can't do with the data. Any deviation from the standard would only be to increase your privacy.
That way, rather then page after page of legal jargon, customers would see "This website follows level 3 privacy standards, with the exception that we won't email you." Or something.
I'd like to see the same thing done for EULAs, as well.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Feds have a hunch drugs are being sold in your neighborhood. They take it upon themselves to search each and every house looking for them. After everything settles, they sort out the details of the illegal searches. Ya, I see that being the "best of both worlds".
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Make sure you interrupt them at least a dozen times to re-read paragraphs.Tell them there's static on the line. Keep them going ON THEIR 800 nickel for at least an hour or two.
Finally, tell them you've changed your mind about the ticket and hang up.I figure they have at most about 1000 telephone reservation people at a given time - less late at night. It would be fairly easy to bring their reservation system to its knees by complying with this judge's requirements. After all, THEY made the rules - all you're doing is following them!
I'm wondering if the judge was just lazy and wanted this at a higher level, so he made an asinine ruling to get it bumped up on appeal. Doesn't make sense - he would get dinged for the crappy judgement at some point, but it's kinda like not vetoing a bill hoping the court will rule it invalid.
...and you run and you run and you can't stop what's been done...
Isn't the posting of a privacy policy and refusing to follow it Interstate fraud?
wake up and hold your nose
In this country, unless Ashcroft & Co. have changed things, we have an inalienable right to privacy that cannot be denied unless waived explicitly. Therefore, if there was no contract, NWA had no right to even -have- their personal information. So now the issue changes from a simple privacy policy violation to a breach of numerous state and federal laws.
For example, Article I of the California Constitution guarantees its citizens an inalienable right to privacy.
In effect, by issuing this ruling, NWA may be worse off than if they had been forced to pay reparations for a contract violation....Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Agreements between parties cannot be one-way. In fact, I would believe (standard disclaimer: IANAL-BWI -- IANAL But Who Is?) the moment NorthWest published their privacy policy, they unilaterally bound themselves to it regardless of passenger actions.
The case should be appealed.
The Appeals Court should promptly reinstate it.
This judge should be immediately removed for incompetence.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."