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.
From the court...
Further, the disclosure here was not to the public at large, but rather was to a government agency in the wake of a terrorist attack that called into question the security of the nation's transportation
system. Northwest's motives in disclosing the information cannot be questioned... the Court finds as a matter of law that the disclosure of Plaintiffs' personal information would not be highly offensive to a reasonable person and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for intrusion upon seclusion.
Whoa... citing 9/11 as a reason why privacy rules should be ignored and a court saying that you can't question the motivations of those who are hiding behing a shield preventing terror attacks?
The fact that Northwest was doing this to fight for the side of good and that they didn't profit from this at all are mitigating factors that soften the blow, but should not be used to waive off the foul entirely. 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.
...often rule that when not read an EULA is void. This has happened several times. Unfortunatelly there are not many ways to force a luser to read an EULA... remotely....
Cheers,
Ian
I am gathering that the only information they submitted was information gathered when tickets were purchased online and through their web site only.
Hmmm.
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.)
Having said that, I think the court erred. If a company has a privacy policy, and the court says unless we read it and understand it we have "a low expectation of privacy"? That to me makes zero sense.
What should have happened was the government gathers the information in a time of vulnerability. Then after everything settles the courts order the information should not have been released. It gives us the best of both worlds. We can be protected in times of turbulence, and we can still have out fundamental rights protected in good times. That way the information is destroyed, no real damage done.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
what if u only had to read one standardised privacy EULA in you life time. wouldnt it make more sense that your rights to privacy were all in one space and everyone used the same standard. i realise this puts alot of lawyers out of jobs writing these things or who ever it is that makes them.
wouldnt it be easyer for all of us when we install programs with EULA's. If all said EULA's were the same.
Some thing like this would pop up instead
do you accept the privacy EULA Standard 1.0.3.1 set down by such and such agency.
uh oh. i think i'm making to much sense. i should be more careful or i might burn down the internet by accident.
Non-smokers die every day --Bill Hicks
That should certainly slow those Indian call centres down to five or six bookings per staff member per day...
If you ever go out and buy something like Knight os the Old Republic for the Xbox, turn to the back pages of the manual and read the EULA.
EULAs have begun to appear in many video games recently. They're usually amoung the most draconian, restrictive and probobly illegal EULAs to date, saying thing like the company reserves the right to recind all support, take the software from you, snoop on what your doing with it online and of course is not liable for ANY AND ALL damage that may be incurred from the software.
Most people I know never even read the manual, let alone the EULA. A lot of the agreements state that just by opening the box( the EULA is sealed within the box) you have agreed to the terms!
I know myself that I usually never do any more than glance at EULAs and I've certainly never gotten to the bottom of the Microsoft EULA.
Seemingly this judge has ruled that privacy policies, in themselves agreements, only apply if you read them. Usually this could be extended to other (unsigned)agreements. But of course we must Remember!!
EULAs are to do with COMPUTERS!!!
That means DCMA restrictions, patents and copyright rules all apply in computer mode. Meaning of course that normal rules _DO NOT APPLY_
. You have no rights, but many responsibilites.
And of course no privacy!
May the Maths Be with you!
As lifted from their website. This is only the first portion, but I felt it was most relevant. For the record, the bold emphasis is not mine, but is included on the original.
nwa.com Reservations and WorldPerks Award Travel Reservations Usage Agreement And Notices
AGREEMENT BETWEEN USER AND NORTHWEST AIRLINES
This Web site is offered to the user conditioned on acceptance by the user ("User") without modification of the terms, conditions, and notices contained herein. By accessing and using this Web site, the User is deemed to have agreed to all such terms, conditions, and notices (the "Agreement").
PRIVACY POLICY
As a User of nwa.com Reservations, you are in complete control of your travel planning needs. This includes controlling the use of information you provide to Northwest Airlines and its affiliates.
When you reserve or purchase travel services through nwa.com Reservations, we provide only the relevant information required by the car rental agency, hotel, or other involved third party to ensure the successful fulfillment of your travel arrangements. We also use information you provide during User registration or as part of the reservation process to customize the content of our site to meet your specific needs and to make product improvements to nwa.com Reservations.
We do not sell individual customer names or other private profile information to third parties and have no intention of doing so in the future. We do share User information with our partners only for specific and pertinent promotional use but only if our customers have opted to receive such information. As a User of nwa.com Reservations you have the option to receive updates from Northwest and Northwest WorldPerks Partners about fare sales in your area, special offers, new Northwest Airlines services and noteworthy news. To receive this information you must register for our promotional email programs or check the appropriate box in your nwa.com Reservations Member Information profile. If you decide you would rather not receive these emails, you can always unregister or update your Member Information in nwa.com Reservations
We respect and will continue to respect the privacy of our customers who use nwa.com Reservations. For more information about protecting your privacy, please see Frequently Asked Questions or our Privacy Policy
Additionally, Northwest uses third-party advertising technology to serve ads when you visit sites upon which we advertise. This technology uses information about your visits to the sites upon which we advertise, (not including your name, address, or other personal information), to serve our ads to you. In the course of serving our advertisements to you, a unique third-party cookie may be placed or recognized on your browser. In addition, we use web beacons, provided by our ad serving partner, to help manage our online advertising. These web beacons enable our ad server to recognize a browser's cookie when a browser visits this site and to learn which banner ads bring users to nwa.com. The information we collect and share through this technology is not personally identifiable. To learn more about our third party ad serving partner, cookies, and how to "opt-out," please click here
--LordPixie
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.
This flies in the face of established contract law (other than allegations of procedural unconscionability). This is, however, dicta, since the judge dismissed for failure to state a claim, and did not rule on the merits of the contract claim. Even if he did, this case is not precedent, since it is not an appellate court, just a dumb trial judge editorializing.
The big problem is that the suit was poorly pleaded anyway. The dumb lawyer didn't allege a prima facie case for breach (didn't ask for contract damages), so there is no way the plaintiff could prevail on a contract cause of action. Malpractice! Jesus, I looked at the /. article, without even RTFA, and instantly thought "breach." Dumbass attorney.
Also, the judge suggests that a privacy policy is not actually part of the contract for air travel anyway, just an FYI, as in "hey, FWIW, this is our policy."
IAAL, but not your lawyer. This is not legal advice, and should not be construed as such. This is merely layman bullshit. Do not rely on it. Only a retarded baboon would do that.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
...read the order and try to understand something about the law here people.
IANAL but IAALS (I Am A Law Student)
This judge ruled as a matter of law and much of this case was procedural. You cannot just allege something and bring it into court and hope that you find a judge that sympathizes. A key component of this order is Rule 12(b)(6) that allows a case to be dismissed for failure to state a claim. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule12.htm
This concept is more complicated than it might seem to readers that don't even RTFA and just assume whatever they want to, but there are solid procedural rule in place (established by the US Supreme Court) that require certain things to be stated in order to for a claim to be properly stated. These rules are partly to promote efficiency in the court system, and also to keep incomplete causes of action out of the system because they aren't sufficiently stated.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under F.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) is to test the formal sufficiency of the statement of the claim for relief. It is not a procedure for resolving a contest about the merits of the case. 5A Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure 1356 (West 1990)
Procedure is important. Honestly, discussions about this sort of thing may be over the heads of those that prefer to offer their rabid opinions about a topic rather than trying to understand the real issue at hand here.
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?
Does this mean I should require someone to sign a contract before I give them my telephone number?
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!
Furthermore, generally a contract consists of an offer, acceptance, and consideration
They did not even allege that this was accepted by the Plaintiffs (even if this was considered an offer)
Next, they did not seem to allege any actual damages (under contract law)
In this case it seems the judge did what he was supposed to do: Rule on a Breach of Contract Claim.
There may even be a claim under another law, and there is no indication that the misrepresentation portion as covered by the ADA would aplly to non-airline matters.
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.
The only part of the ruling which looks at all questionable is the one quote used in the /. blurb. That part does read a little strangely, but it probably refers back to the deposition phase where the plaintiffs did something bone-headed like admit that they didn't actually read the privacy agreement before buying tickets.
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.
If privacy policies can't be enforced since people don't read them and hence "expectation of privacy is low", are EULAs unenforcable since companies know people don't read them?
Last post!
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."