Borders Bust Means B&N May Get Your Shopping History

coondoggie writes "To perhaps no one's surprise, Borders bookstore collected a ton of consumer information — such as personal data, including records of particular book and video sales — during its normal course of business. Such personal information Borders promised never to share without consumer consent. But now that the company is being sold off as part of its bankruptcy filing, all privacy promises are off. Reuters wrote this week that Barnes & Noble, which paid almost $14 million for Borders' intellectual assets (including customer information) at auction last week, said it should not have to comply with certain customer-privacy standards recommended by a third-party ombudsman."

Comments

how is this legal?

[ILongForDarkness]

Information is an asset I'll admit. But the access to the information was clearly bounded by Border's privacy policy. I really don't understand why the courts are even considering the possibility of allowing it to be sold. If the privacy policy said only Borders would access the data then when Borders ceases to exist than so should the data. B&N can just ask you to give them the info if you choose to under their privacy agreement. The fact that the company would even try to purchase information covered under a privacy agreement with another company puts them on my no-buy list.

Re:how is this legal?

[0123456]

If the privacy policy said only Borders would access the data then when Borders ceases to exist than so should the data.

Data doesn't disappear just because the company does. This is why anyone who's interested in privacy should be ensuring that no-one else has their data in the first place.

A 'privacy policy' is not a legally-binding agreement, and even if it was there's no guarantee that it would apply in bankruptcy.

Re:how is this legal?

[TemporalBeing]

I think part of this is legal - B&N doesn't want to find itself ensnared by legal complications resulting from deficiencies in Borders' data collection or handling practices.

While IANAL, From my limited understanding of Bankruptcy law, the courts can basically dissolve nearly any contract in place. So as far as the Bankruptcy court is concerned the Private Policy doesn't exist, and they can sell the information off regardless of what the Private Policy said. The Privacy Policy only protects against what Borders itself can do with the data in the course of their own business, but once you get to Bankruptcy court then all bets are off. That is the problem with Privacy Policies.

Now, if another company simply bought Borders then the Privacy Policy would still be in effect. The issue only comes into play when a company goes through Bankruptcy. Privacy Policies might even survive restructuring under Chapter 11 Bankruptcy; but it won't likely survive Chapter 7 Bankruptcy.

That said, I think this is one area that Congress should address and fix - so the Bankruptcy courts are not so free to break the Privacy Policies, however restrictive the company may have made them.

The final clause in all privacy policies

[SirGarlon]

The final clause in all privacy policies are words to the effect, "this policy is subject to change at any time, with or without notice to you." Now we have an example of what that means.

I have always regarded that a license to defraud the consumer, as they can initially offer privacy terms that are acceptable, then collect your data, then revoke the privacy protections without giving you a chance to change or delete your data.

Sellective buying

[mwvdlee]

B&N: Hi, we'd like to buy some parts of Borders.
Executor: Sure, which parts would you like?
B&N: Everything except the legal obligations, please.