Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Data Storage United States Your Rights Online

Northwest Privacy Lawsuit Dismissed 241

Posted by timothy from the oh-you-didn't-read-that-it's-too-small dept.
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).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Northwest Privacy Lawsuit Dismissed More

Northwest Privacy Lawsuit Dismissed

Comments Filter:

  • Government favoratism by courts. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:34AM (#9442408)
    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?

    • Contract (Score:3, Informative)

      by nuggz ( 69912 )
      A contract is a formal agreement. If you did not read it, you can't have agreement, and hence no contract.
      Contracts can be overturned or broken if one can prove they did not understand or have an actual agreement.

      • Re:Contract (Score:3, Informative)

        by lukewarmfusion ( 726141 )
        If the person is presented with the contract, given an unhindered opportunity to read and comprehend the contract, and signs it... it's binding. Nobody will overturn it just because you signed a contract without reading it. If it was intentionally vague or deceptive, then that's cause for breaking the contract.

      • Re:Contract (Score:5, Insightful)

        by the_mad_poster ( 640772 ) <shattoc@adelphia.com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:05AM (#9442744) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • Re:Contract (Score:5, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:53AM (#9443293)
          If you'd actually read the memorandum, you'd see that the court doesn't consider a privacy policy, or ANY "general policy", to be considered a contract. Kinda sinks your arguement. Also, if you'd read the memo, you'd see that the Plaintiffs apparently had no idea what they were doing and argued points of law that had no bearing on what happened. They try to say that Northwest is an "Electronic Communications Service Provider", which it is not. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act, which is what was being used as the basis for the complaint, does not extend to online merchants. The plaintiffs also do not understand the rules of court and I'm betting made real asses of themselves in the deposition phase.

          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.

        • Re:Contract (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @12:38PM (#9443781) Homepage Journal
          This ruling seems like it was a straw man intended to push it to a higher court on appeal. There's no way a judge could really be so completely ignorant of both contract law and privacy law. Thus, we can only assume that there is another agenda at work.

          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.

          CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
          ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

          SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and 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....

      • A contract is a formal agreement. If you did not read it, you can't have agreement, and hence no contract.

        Would the same apply to and End User License Agreement?

    • Re:Government favoratism by courts. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by EEgopher ( 527984 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:49AM (#9442574) Homepage
      It's not always "just my problem" if I decide to read the entire contract. I had to read and sign a tiny-font two-pager yesterday before receiving my eye exam at the mall (maybe this was part of the exam, ha ha, I know). I showed up on time for my appointment, but to really read and understand the contract would have put me and the entire office a good 15 minutes behind schedule. Where time is money, we need some good 10-line contracts that fit on a business card.
      • If you are about what you are signing, you take the 15 minutes and read the contract. If, in your judgement, 15 minutes of your time is more valuable than the potential exposure of what you are agreeing to, then sign it without reading it.

        If you find out at some later point that you have, for instance, gone blind as a result of the exam, but forfeited all rights to redress the issue, then you look for a good guide dog and hope you can earn enough money to support the two of you by selling pencils on the

    • Very true (Score:5, Informative)

      by unassimilatible ( 225662 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:00AM (#9442694) Journal
      It is astonishing that the judge seems to suggest that by not reading a contract, one is not bound to its terms!

      This flies in the face of established contract law (other than allegations of procedural unconscionability). This is, however, dicta [lectlaw.com], 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.

      • Re:Very true (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Aidtopia ( 667351 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:16PM (#9444151) Homepage Journal
        It is astonishing that the judge seems to suggest that by not reading a contract, one is not bound to its terms!

        If you read the actual finding, you'll see that the plaintiffs' failure to read the privacy policy wasn't really the basis of the ruling. The judge determined that the privacy policy didn't consitute a contract and, even if it had, the plaintiffs didn't show any damages as a result of the breech (breach?), which is necessary for to make a breech of contract claim.

    • Where is JonKatz when you need him...

    • 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?

      I know you can't be bothered with actually READING the ruling you're commenting on. If you did, you might not be able to get the +5 Insightful first post. However, if you HAD bothered to read the ruling, you'd find that the judge ruled based on precident that a general policy statement does not constitute a contract. Therefore, there was no contractual obligation to

  • so.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gl4ss ( 559668 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:34AM (#9442412) Homepage Journal
    the judge basically just told that "hey, the next guy that sues 'em should say that he read the statement".

    • Re:so.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:39AM (#9442460)
      Unfortantely, the ruling is knocking the case on several other fronts as well. Even if the plantiffs had claimed to have read the statement, the ruling says that wouldn't have been enough because privacy policies do not form a contract in the first place.
      • It's possible this ruling can be used as a defense against EULAs and (especially, and even more annoying) AUPs for websites. However, from the wording, I'm not sure. It sounds like the judge is taking the position that without an explicit and proactively argeed on policy, you have no expectation of privacy, and that just seems unreasonable to me.

      • Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Viceice ( 462967 )
        if it's not a contarct then it's PR, which means it's advertising.

        So why sue NW over false advertising?

      • wtf? seriously?
        what does make a contract then? how the fuck are customers able to trust anything then, "sorry but just because it said pizza doesn't mean it is a pizza, it's not a contract anyways"? is the consumer really so fucked in the usa?

        however, I understand that it was deemed legal to give the data(hell, it's the gov, they could state it to be legal if they wanted anyways).. but not the basis of this ruling.

        around here the national airlines company had big problems over this actually.. since usa de

  • Using 9/11 to justify anything? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:35AM (#9442418)
    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.

  • Italian judges... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Vihai ( 668734 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:36AM (#9442429) Homepage
    ...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....

    • Re:Italian judges... (Score:4, Informative)

      by taped2thedesk ( 614051 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:50AM (#9442595)
      Italian judges often rule that when not read an EULA is void.

      If a EULA falls in Italy, does anybody hear it?

    • You can never verify that they actually read and understood the contents of the EULA, but you can certainly verify that they were given the opportunity and that they "agreed" to the EULA.

      Even if you skip the EULA and just click "I Agree" it signifies that you were presented with the document...

      The judge wouldn't throw out a contract that you signed just because you said you didn't read it before signing. He'd probably call you an idiot.
    • Italian judges have also said it's not rape if you take off your tight jeans and let the guy have his way with you sexually, even though the guy has a gun to you telling you he will kill you if you don't take off your jeans.

  • Insane (Score:5, Funny)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:36AM (#9442430) Homepage
    By the same rationale, since they had not actually read every law book in the land their expectations of justice were low...

    Cheers,
    Ian

    • Re:Insane (Score:2, Funny)

      by LV-427 ( 315309 )
      Reminds me of the Steve Martin bit:
      "You say, 'Steve, how can I be a millionaire and never pay taxes?' Two simple words. Two simple words in the English language ... 'I forgot.' How many times do we let ourselves get into terrible situations because we don't say, 'I forgot'? Let's say you're on trial for armed robbery. You say to the judge, 'I forgot armed robbery was illegal'."

  • Confusion... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:38AM (#9442454) Journal
    I am confused a bit... While a majority of people do buy plane tickets online, there are some others that still use the telephone to make reservations through the provider. Did the release of personal information include any of those passengers still using the old way? Or was it only reservations made through their web site? How about those that made reservations through 3rd party sites such as Orbitz, Hotwire?

    I am gathering that the only information they submitted was information gathered when tickets were purchased online and through their web site only.

    • Re:Confusion... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:43AM (#9442504)
      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...

  • Not a good precedent to support (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KarmaOverDogma ( 681451 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:40AM (#9442475) Homepage Journal
    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."

    .
    • 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."

      Not really. The beer people didn't behave any differently before or after the user read (or didn't) the message. The airlines had a policy, the beer label is just a warning. Actually, if the beer people said that drinking lots of it could cause fetal alchohol syndrome, and they did, they held up

      • Actually, if the beer people said that drinking lots of it could cause fetal alchohol syndrome, and they did, they held up to their word!

        Heh.. yes, well.. it's good to know that some people in this world still maintain a sense of pride in their work.

    • While sometimes I may agree with you for moral reasons, in the eyes of the law A PROMISE IS NOT ENFORCEABLE (generally speaking). Just because someone says they will do something doesn't mean tyou can bring a case against them.

      there have to be other circumstances i.e. a law saying this specific type of promise is enforceable, contract law, etc.

    • 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."

      This has already happened, actually, in the Big Tobacco casses. In point of fact, at least one person argued, and won, that they had read the warning, but the tobacco company was liable, anyway.
      • I know. But I didn't want to cite smoking mainly because I thought it was a poor example for the point I was trying to make about honoring one's word.

        The Tobacco situation I see a bit differently. "Younger smokers" (a term that is wide open to interpretation I know) in particular, really should known better than to think smoking won't harm them - with the warning label, no less. For this group, suing the industry on the basis of "I didn't know" is usually just a bunch of ignorant/irresonsible crap.

        "Olde
  • did they admit they hadn't read it- they could have at least read it before they ended up in court, but I do have to agree that if you don't take the time to read the privacy disclosure then you probably don't really care about it until you know that it was clearly breached.

    on a similar note: you always have a right to bitch about politics, but I'm not paying any attention to you if you don't bother to vote and actually partake in the system yourself.

  • EULAs are non-binding for a different reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NSash ( 711724 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:42AM (#9442498) Journal
    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.)
    • You are correct in your statements that EULA's are non-binding. I guess it's basically an explanation of what we will do with the information at that time. I mean...sure... Right now they are a profitable business, but when they need an extra buck that information can be sold/given away instantly. As a customer of that business, what can you do? The EULA is non-binding so a lawsuit wont work.
    • EULAs are non-binding anyway.

      I am a broken record that repeats the words ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg [bitlaw.com] whenever someone claims that EULA's are unenforcable. The unfortunate truth is that they have indeed been upheld in the past.
    • The only thing that gives an "I Agree" button any significance is the EULA. If you don't agree to the terms of the EULA, pressing the button doesn't carry any weight.

      "Pressing that button means you agree to our terms"
      Says who?
      "According to our EULA"
      But I don't agree with the terms of the EULA.
      "But pushing the button means you do"
      Says who?

      I deliberately say to myself "I don't agree with any of that crap, but I'm going to press this button to get the software to install".

      Ditto for mail from the credit

    • I recently bought a pair of walkie-talkies. Inside the package was a notice that to use the walkie-talkies requires a license from the FCC. Nowhere on the outside of the package was this listed. Furthermore, the FCC license (which costs more than the walkie-talkies themselves) limits who can use them and what types of topics can be communicated over them. I don't remember such restrictions when, thirty years ago, I saved my coins to by a set from Radio Shack.

  • Read? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    Come on, this is Slashdot. We don't even read articles (sometimes even the blurbs!), let alone privacy policies. Well, except for the dedicated Tin Foil Hat Brigade.

  • What should we expect? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by John Seminal ( 698722 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:43AM (#9442507) Journal
    First, right after 9/11 there was a mad rush to figure out what happened and if it could happen again. So I can see the government in a mad hysteria trying to gather information to figure out if there is a threat. I do not blame the government for that.

    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.

    • 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".

  • Standard EULA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tracon5 ( 152442 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:43AM (#9442518)
    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.
    • "what if u only had to read one standardised privacy EULA in you life time"

      Well this is a type of End User License Agreement: http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.htm l

  • Delays, delays... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Coos ( 580883 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:44AM (#9442533)
    So, from now on, book all tickets etc. over the phone and require that the company read out all their terms, conditions and policies in full in order to ensure that they are really bound by them and to prove that you have full expectation that they honour what they say they intend to do.

    That should certainly slow those Indian call centres down to five or six bookings per staff member per day...

    • Namely, you can't contend that you can't have 'expected' a company to act a certain way with your information based on a Privacy Policy you haven't read. Buying something over the counter/phone gives a certain expection of privacy. But that is often different than what you expect out of a website. The PP creates a pretty definite expectation for that site, but the plaintiffs seem to be trying to apply that elsewhere. It's pretty hard to do that if they hadn't read the damn thing.

      In the interests of
      • Unfortunatly, the current legal standing for privacy is the "expectation" of privacy. And not what a particular person expects, but what the courts think is generally expected.

        So if you take a picture of me naked through my bathroom window and publish it, you've violated my privacy. Take the same picture with me on my front lawn, and you haven't.

        That being said, I think it's a terrible standard in the modern world, because it allows for the general erosion of privacy as we expect less and less - we no

  • EULA Landmines (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:48AM (#9442569) Homepage Journal
    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!

    • 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!

      That's why they can't sensibly be enforced. You can't agree to contractual obligations without the opportunity to read them. That's bad faith dealing. It would be like walking into a bank, them handing you a big fat check, and then sending you the contract to read and sign AFTER you cash it. There's just no way that would ever stand up in any reasonable court.

      They sue you, you walk

  • I didnt RTFA or see if this had been posted before, so does that mean im not a troll?

    Seriously these judges are on crack if they think they can get away with biased judgement (and im not sure since i dint RTFA but I think thats what this is). Not only would this not work if someone claimed they didnt read a EULA or didnt know a device could be used to violate the DMCA, but when corporations go around sueing for stupid patent infringements, they dont get thrown out of court on the grounds that they should n

  • NWA Privacy Policy. (Score:5, Informative)

    by LordPixie ( 780943 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @10:55AM (#9442632) Journal
    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

  • "privacy policies" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LochNess ( 239443 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:00AM (#9442688) Homepage
    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.
  • EULA's, contracts and other agreements are all well and dandy - but they cannot always circumvent or supersede actual law. So the EULA can talk about privacy all it wants. It can even state "we will not give your information out to ANYONE." If the feds come a knockin, they better have that information ready in a nicely wrapped package with a bow on it, and there is nothing the company (nor the company's customer) can do about it.

  • Before all the knee-jerk reactions... (Score:5, Informative)

    by restive ( 542491 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:01AM (#9442697)
    ...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.

    • I'm reading TFA. It says this:

      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

      So, which procedure would it be, exactly, that says that contractual obligations are null and void on one party's behalf if the other party doesn't explicitly say they read the contract? If this were flipped and the contract said something, they signed it, and now th

  • EULA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:01AM (#9442705) Homepage Journal
    If you haven't read a particular EULA, does that mean it doesn't apply either?

    No, because a privacy policy dictates customer expectations while an EULA dictates vendor expectations. A person is expected to abide by a contract they agree to whether they read it or not. Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.
    • Of course the EULA hasn't been validated in court yet AFAIK, but that's another story.

      I am a broken record that repeats the words ProCD Inc. v. Zeidenberg [bitlaw.com] whenever someone claims that EULA's have never been upheld in court. Unfortunately they have.

  • So in the USA... (Score:4, Funny)

    by IWannaBeAnAC ( 653701 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:03AM (#9442719)
    ... you have zero "expectation of privacy" unless you explicitly accept a contract to the contrary?

    Does this mean I should require someone to sign a contract before I give them my telephone number?

  • Do they get to go to court? Do they have to take an exam to prove they have read it? Or is the privacy policy there for mere decoration? Looks nice but otherwise meaningless...

  • The privacy statement on Northwest's website did not constitute a unilateral contract.
    The language used vests discretion in Northwest to determine when the information is
    "relevant" and which "third parties" might need that information. See Grenier v. Air Express
    Int'l Corp., 132 F. Supp. 2d 1198, 1201 (D. Minn. 2001) (Doty, J.). Moreover, absent an
    allegation that Plaintiffs actually read the privacy policy, not merely the general allegation that
    Plaintiffs "relied on" the policy, Plaintiffs have failed to a

    • Breach of what contract? A privacy POLICY is not a contract. Therefore, they didn't breach anything. They merely broke a suggestion to the consumer.

      The answer to why the lawsuit failed is right here:
      "Even if the privacy policy was sufficiently definite and Plaintiffs had alleged that they read the policy before giving their information to Northwest, it is likely that Plaintiffs' contract and warranty claims would fail as a matter of law. Defendants point out that Plaintiffs have failed to allege any

  • If their expectation of privacy was low, why are they suing when it was violated? I didn't read the "change fee" rules, either - I want a free, last-minute itinerary change, upgraded to first class! The federal coddling of the airline business is the depths of hypocracy: after the billions in corporate welfare, bailouts, anticompetitive laws, monopoly protection, and total subsidies, all at your tax expense, the "free trade" administration has now made clear that passengers are merely the feast on which air

  • bizzare (Score:5, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @11:49AM (#9443250) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Go buy a house, and tell the lender you will not sign away your right to sue and have arbitration instead.

    See how far you get.

  • How to Get Stuff Free (Score:3, Funny)

    by serutan ( 259622 ) <snoopdoug AT geekazon DOT com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @12:14PM (#9443524) Homepage
    I wonder if this would work:

    When you sign a purchase contract, staple a note to it containing 3 pages of legal verbiage. Somewhere near the bottom say, "customer reserves the right to void any terms of this contract at any time, and/or withhold payment for an indefinite period of time while assessing the value of the product or service." Then when the collections people come knocking, show them the contract with your clause highlighted and tell them to have a nice day.

  • Here's what you do.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @12:16PM (#9443542)
    Call Northwest's telephone reservations number. Book a cheap ticket...THEN tell the person you want them to read you every word on their privacy policy. If they ask why, site this court case

    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!

  • This is Appeal Bati (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Warlok ( 89470 ) <jfincher42@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @12:17PM (#9443557) Journal
    This is almost an automatic setup for an appeal and upgrade to the next higher court. There is absolutely no way a judge can rule a contract or agreement unenforcable because both parties didn't read it. If you didn't read it, then that's you're tough luck, but there's a couple centries of contract law showing that unread portions of contracts are enforcable as long as the contract itself is enforcable.


    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.

  • Silver lining (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DahGhostfacedFiddlah ( 470393 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @12:45PM (#9443844)
    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?

  • Validity Check -- Would the reverse have been true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Wednesday June 16, 2004 @01:29PM (#9444265)
    Here's a validity check. If the situation was reversed and the passenger was being sued for not adhering to some term of NorthWest's ticketing agreement, would the court have also ruled it was not valid because he had not read it in detail, and therefore not agreed to it?

    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.

  • _I_ for one read do, goddamit, read privacy statements, and the dark-grey-on-light-grey fine print on the back of auto rental agreements, and so forth. I read whatever I sign. OK, sometimes I skim it pretty quickly if there is a long line behind me.

    Is the court saying that what I do doesn't count, since most people don't read them? (Sorta like the FDA saying that it's OK for fish to have higher levels of mercury than other foods because most people don't eat that much fish...)

    Does this mean that whenever

Slashdot Top Deals

The most difficult thing in the world is to know how to do a thing and to watch someone else doing it wrong, without commenting. -- T.H. White

Close