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...
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.
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!
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...
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."