Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: phranque
On another forum the mod is an attorney
So is this one, but we won't be dishing out free legal advice here I'm afraid. It's not appropriate, and causes all manner of legal issues for the foums owners.
Personally I find it quite important, but I'm probably particular about that kind of thing. It definitely makes a difference to me.
For the more average visitor, I wonder whether having a visible link to one actually makes a difference, whether or not it's actually read?
The other option is if the site is "certified" in some sense like "Truste" [truste.org ] or something. Then you would have some recourse through that company.
[edited by: Marshall at 6:00 pm (utc) on May 18, 2007]
Back to your email example, IMO this should be reprehensible:
If I entrust you with my email address upon reading your articles of privacy
And then if I am deceived I shall be legally compensated for your wrong doing
"example.com often shares information with third party companies that provide services and products that may be of benefit to you"
Anyone who proceeds on a site like this deserves all the spam they get. :-)
I get people who are concerned with such things now and again. As it turns out they end up having much more serious issues then the matter at hand, such as anger issues which have been placed on various things like solicitors, blocked caller id's, having messages which don't accept calls from blocked numbers etc. among other things including problems with the products they receive.
That's why *I* care about privacy (policies).
You should see my lack of anger management when my data is doled out carelessly...
It's funny you mentioned the junk faxes. That is actually a crime in the US. I use to receive them all the time and I too unpluged my fax machine. Of course, the sender always used a fake sender ID. Anyway, I once did call the "800" number on the fax to complain and the company said that they hired another company to send the faxes and have no control over them. FYI - I was a Police Chief at the time, so I called the attorney general office of PA. They told me there was nothing they could do about it unless I provided the identification of the sender. In other words, even if there is some violation, and in this case of an actual law, the people who are responsible to enforce them are not going to do a thing. Believe me, I know.
Which is why EU data-protection law has this one reasonably right, making it a crime to mishandle data higher up the food chain, eg sell it without permission, long before it can get to the scum who SPAM you.
For example, by signing up with the mail preference service, companies using direct mail are obliged to screen mailing lists with it, else they can be shown to be careless with (mishandling) personal data. And thus it and the fax and telephone preference services do normally work reasonably well. Not quite well enough for me to keep the fax line, but OK.
I agree, but what is the point in reading them if they're just unenforceable marketing-speak?
That leads me to believe that privacy policies in general are put up as liability shield. (Not P3P, as that has some technical uses.)
In many instances we hear “educate the users”
This applies in many ways, some posters mentioned:
Who’s reading those? Who really cares? Does it matter?
Where am I going with this? Well if we do our best to educate also the web owner those policies could have a real impact on privacy protection behavior.
What really matters is (Before going live) to clearly define the user experience, what is the user responsibility, what is the owner responsibility, foresee with the owner how he/she intends to use collected marketing data. Draw a line in between acceptable mailing and on the spamming edge unacceptable mailing.
Weight benefits and drawback
Set the policy
Clearly make it accessible
Obey by it
In the long run it will become very much of a benefit to the user and web owner
Although I have to agree on this.