Privacy Policies Are Great — For PhDs 161
An anonymous reader writes "Major Internet companies say that they inform their customers about privacy issues through specially written policies. What they don't say is that more often than not consumers would need college undergraduate educations or higher to easily wade through the verbiage. BNET looked at 20-some-odd privacy policies from Internet companies that received letters from the House about privacy practices. The easiest to read policy came from Yahoo, at a roughly 12th grade level. Most difficult? Insight Communications, which at a level of over 20 years of eduction officially puts it onto IRS Code territory."
It's Quite Obvious Why They're At This Level (Score:5, Insightful)
And there's not a lot you can do about this, we're going to want to sue the pants off a bastard company if suddenly our name and address is being traded on a disc with 50,000 others on the black market. So they write these policies to be air tight and they use terms that have legal connotations because I'm sure the only time these things are scrutinized are in court anyway. And the second you take away that level of granularity, I'm sure you see yourself as a company open up to lawsuits.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree slightly, while yes their should be a legalese version which is the default, the EULA is an end user license agreement, not a end user lawyer agreement.
It is there specifically for the end user to understand his and her rights with regards to the software the user purchased. Unless software manufacturers expect us all to retain lawyers to purchase our software and products for us, the EULA should be in plain, easily readable to any high school student English (that last bit brings up other issue
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else remember the old "Borland No-Nonsense License Agreement"?
Re:It's Quite Obvious Why They're At This Level (Score:4, Informative)
No-Nonsense License Statement
This software is protected by both United States copyright law and international copyright treaty provisions. Therefore, you must treat this software just like a book, except that you may copy it onto a computer to be used and you may make archival copies of the software for the sole purpose of backing-up our software and protecting your investment from loss.
By saying "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that this software may be used by any number of people, and may be freely moved from one computer location to another, so long as there is no possibility of it being used at one location while it's being used at another or on a computer network by more than one user at one location. Just like a book can't be read by two different people in two different places at the same time, neither can the software be used by two different people in two different places at the same time.
(Unless, of course, Borland's copyright has been violated or the use is on a computer network by up to the number of users authorized by additional Borland licenses as explained below.)
LAN Pack Multiple-Use Network License
If this is a LAN Pack package, it allows you to increase the number of authorized users of your copy of the software on a single computer network by up to the number of users specified in the LAN Pack package (per LAN Pack -- see LAN Pack serial number).
Use on a Network
A "computer network" is any electronically linked configuration in which two or more users have common access to software or data. If more than one user wishes to use the software on a computer network at the same time, then you may add authorized users either by (a) paying for a separate software package for each additional user you wish to add or (b) if a LAN Pack is available for this product, paying for the multiple-use license available in the LAN Pack. You may use any combination of regular software packages or LAN Packs to increase the number of authorized users on a computer network. (In no event may the total number of concurrent users on a network exceed one for each software package plus the number of authorized users installed from the LAN Pack(s) that you have purchased. Otherwise, you are not using the software "just like a book.") The multiple-use network license for the LAN Pack may only be used to increase the number of concurrent permitted users of the software logged onto the network, and not to download copies of the software for local workstation use without being logged onto the network. You must purchase an individual copy of the software for each workstation at which you wish to use the software without being logged onto the network.
Further Explanation of Copyright Law Provisions and the Scope of This License Statement
You may not download or transmit the software electronically (either by direct connection or telecommunication transmission) from one computer to another, except as may be specifically allowed in using the software on a computer network. You may transfer all of your rights to use the software to another person, provided that you transfer to that person (or destroy) all of the software, diskettes and documentation provided in this package, together with all copies, tangible or intangible, including copies in RAM or installed on a disk, as well as all back-up copies. Remember, once you transfer the software, it may only be used at the single location to which it is transferred and, of course, only in accordance with copyright law and international treaty provisions. Except as stated in this paragraph, you may not otherwise transfer, rent, lease, sub-license, time-share, or lend the software, diskettes, or documentation. Your use of the software is limited to acts that are essential steps in the use of the software on your computer or computer network as described in the documentation. You may not otherwise modify, alter, adapt, merge, decompile or reverse-engineer the software, and you may not remove or obscure Borland copyright or trademark notices.
(From "Paradox for Windows")
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm fairly certain there are many possessors of cold six-packs on /.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've never understood the point of these "privacy policies".
Regardless of their reading difficulty, they all end or contain:
"We have the right to change everything that you are agreeing to without your consent."
That is not a policy, that is especially not a privacy policy, its simply the individual giving up their privacy.
Re: (Score:1)
It's even more obvious than that...for the reasons you mentioned, companies have them written by their lawyers. The lawyers may have their paralegals write them, but still, whether your lawyer or a paralegal, you have a college eductation -- juris doctorates for lawyers and bachelor's degrees for paras (at least in most states).
Re:It's Quite Obvious Why They're At This Level (Score:5, Insightful)
So we need some standardisation for EULAs, just like foods must list their ingredients in some standard way.
Analyze the available EULAs, 90% of it boils probably down to the same few terms.
Make a list of these terms, label each with a descriptive short name, and maybe a symbol.
Then make a regulation that companies must use those labels if they want to describe terms equivalent to those labels in their EULA.
Every year, make a survey of EULAs to find parts that are not covered by any existing label to find wich new labels need to be added to the system.
Discourage companies from using terms not covered by labels, for example by a tax.
If this leads to mass lawsuits, fix the laws.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is why we have the EULAyzer [brothersoft.com].
Re:It's Quite Obvious Why They're At This Level (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So one possible label to replace all these no-liabilty clauses would be:
LBLx12: "No guarantees, except those granted by Law"
Could even have a nice symbol: [broken wheel inside red circle]
That is easy to understand, no eula could avoid more liability anyway, so regulate businesses to use this label in lieu of any other phrase with identical meaning.
Companies that want to take over more liabilities could use the phrase
LBLx13: "No guarantees, except those granted by Law, AND x1, x2, x3"
Since no eula could poss
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Analyze the available EULAs, 90% of it boils probably down to the same few terms. Make a list of these terms, label each with a descriptive short name, and maybe a symbol.
I envision a middle finger, a guy bent over, and maybe a frowny face.
Re: (Score:2)
I envision a middle finger, a guy bent over, and maybe a frowny face.
These could be combined. When I bend over and encounter somebody's finger, I assure you that I make a frowny face.
Re: (Score:2)
I read Insight's privacy policy. If it really takes a PhD to understand that document, then I guess my undergrad degree must have been a lot more powerful than I thought!
It strikes me that the results of this "study" suggest that a human sanity check of the programs that evaluated the level of education necessary to understand the documents is in order.
Re: (Score:2)
Understand it in a general sense, or well enough to accurately describe all clauses with a flow-chart or other different medium? When you tested yourself on comprehension, what was your error rate?
The problem with law and contracts are that any misunderstanding can be ruinous, and they are usually written by someone trying to exploit the situation. have you looked at the IOCCC or similar obfuscated programming challenges?
We need a legal version of these - the most abusive yet harmless seeming contract possi
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I'm pretty sure that if I was asked to present the information in a different medium, I'd be completely capable. I thought that it was quite clearly written - and I've seen some pretty obfuscated legalese before.
My point was that using a software algorithm to determine the level of education required for comprehension of something isn't particularly useful without a set of human eyes to serve as a sanity check.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure it varies state to state but in WA you can't hide important terms within the boilerplate or the rest of the contract and rely upon that in court. Jurors are generally instructed to disregard contract terms which they believe only one party knew about.
Judges also instruct jurors to disregard any interpretations which render the clause to be absurd or ridiculous and to interpret the clauses in the way that the parties agreed to as much as possible.
IANAL your mileage may very well vary.
Word length (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but it's 5000 words long. Who has time to read 5000 words?
Re:Word length (Score:5, Funny)
Who has time to read 5000 words?
You just need to break the task down and come up with a manageable work plan - if you tackle 5 words a day, you'll be done in less than 3 years.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Who has time to read 5000 words?
You just need to break the task down and come up with a manageable work plan - if you tackle 5 words a day, you'll be done in less than 3 years.
Yes, but by that time MS will have bought Yahoo and I'll have to start all over again.
Re:Word length (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, couldn't they just do it as 5 pictures?
Re:Word length (Score:4, Funny)
Most privacy policies, EULAs, etc could easily be done in pictures.
They could even do it in just 2.
The goatse guy subtitled "You" and the other guy with the company's logo on a placard hanging off his "contract penalty"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, so chances of it actually being implemented are close to nil. B
Re:Word length (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, in most case (although not a legal document, even an illegal legal document like a EULA) the lower the education level needed to read, the more intelligent the writer.
For example, Isaac Asimov's books are written at roughly an eighth grade level, and his nonfiction still managed to educate intelligent, learned people. He was actually called "the great educator". Dr. Asimov held a PhD in biochemistry and taught and did research at (IIRC) Boston University. Asimov was a very intelligent man with a great imagination, and was one hell of a writer.
OTOH I read a paper once by some dimwit PhD who used the word "enumerate" five times in a single paragraph without once using the word "count". Writing like this is intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate, and its sole purpose is usually to impress you with how intelligent the moron is.
In a EULA the obfuscation's purpose is obviously to make you think the damned people won't use your personal information when in fact it actually says the opposite. These people are just slimy.
The thesaurus entry for obfuscate says bewilder, blur, cloud, confuse, darken, dim, garble, hide, muddle, obscure, perplex, puzzle. None are exact synonyms, so sorry; I'm not smart enough to convey this information well.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Writing like this is intended to obfuscate rather than illuminate, and its sole purpose is usually to impress you with how intelligent the moron is.
I think you meant:
Writing like this is intended to confuse the reader rather than communicate clearly...
Eschew obfuscation.
Cheers =)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, thank you for helping me think more clearly. Your sentence was much more clear than mine!
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly, they only need one picture. A silhouette grabbing it's ankles with another silhouette standing behind it.
Re: (Score:2)
And the Insight policy is among the shortest at 1900 words...
Since all of these basically say the same thing, I believe it's their compression scheme that screws up the readability.
Re: (Score:2)
Well 5000 words is a lot. For something that is getting in the way of getting something done. One can sit down and read 5000 words at their leisure rather easily. However when need to read a privacy policy it is much more stressful. Should and Shouldn't do. Reading between the lines for hidden traps, etc... Then the fact that you are under pressure to do what you want to do. Like use the service or software. So for most people they are interested using the service then reading threw a document.
The legal s
Re: (Score:2)
One thing I've learned.... (Score:5, Funny)
... in my over-20 years of education, is that some things just aren't worth reading.
Re:One thing I've learned.... (Score:5, Funny)
and you visit Slashdot anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but I only RTFComments.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but he doesn't come here for the articles.
Privacy issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Looks like it had an impact and my relative decided to close his account and destroy the tree. But geni claims they need my permission to destroy my account. Is it reasonable for a company that bribes its users with free family tree service in exchange for private info about people to follow a opt-out policy? Shouldn't they be required to notify me and get my consent before they add my name? I have received invites from other social networking sites, but they all require me to create an account first. If I ignore the email, I hope, they would not add me to their databases. Probably they will just sell my email address to spammers and stop with that.
I believe there is neither a technological or legal solution to this problem. A new geni.com could easily be run by Russian mafia outside US borders and thumb their noses at us. I think the only solution is social. They are using social engineering to pry private info from the public by offering some service or the other for free. We need to educate the public about the implications of succumbing to the temptations by them. Today if I set up a stand in a fairground and ask people to give the names, addresses and phone numbers of their relatives and friends in exchange for small token gifts the response would not be overwhelming. Somehow people believe it is wrong to tell strangers such information. But set up the same stand in the internet and people are punching in the email addresses of their friends and relatives like gangbusters. What would it take to educate the public about the menace to privacy these companies pose?
I did my best. I pointed out the liability issues the company has like some stalker tracking down someone hiding in a relative's home or identity thieves making use of the mother's maiden names data etc. Told the company that they must disclose their liability to their investors and to anyone they are trying to sell to. Made it official and made it difficult for the company officers to claim later, "We never anticipated that development". If we keep raising the liability issue with these companies, may be we can get their venture capital to dry up. Just a thought.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet my bank thinks it is...
From a lawyer's perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
I really think something needs to be done about this, because 99.9% of people don't read lengthy EULAs and privacy policies simply because they are too long, boring, and difficult to understand, yet we are agreeing to conditions we probably would never agree to if we knew about them. Perhaps a law stating that the policies must be written at a sixth grade level, use small and non-legal words wherever possible, and come with a 1-page summary of the major rights. I think that would be a fantastic idea.
Re:From a lawyer's perspective... (Score:5, Insightful)
They're mandated by the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA).
There's also no reason for them to be hard to read. See, for example, the FTC's privacy policy: http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/privacy.shtm [ftc.gov]
Unfortunately, with Internet T&C, there are a few times where the requirements to be legally binding are at odds with being readable to the layman. For example, if you want to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability, you generally need to put that disclaimer in all-caps and specifically mention that warranty. But, "Warranty of Merchantability" is really a term of art, and a lay person may not understand what it means.
But, absent those times, the fact that a websites T&C are hard to read is really a problem with the lawyer not drafting them for the appropriate audience. Sometimes that comes from the site operator, who doesn't want to be billed for the extra legal time.
That said, I'm not a big fan of your suggested law -- that's a lot of money spent on documents that nobody really reads. More often than not a typical user who slogged through the T&C will conclude "Yeah, that's about what I expected."
Funny story: my kid signed up for the Ty Beanie Baby on-line service. At the end of the sign-in process (which was clearly intended for children to read), there was a cartoon character that said "Be sure to read the terms and conditions and click accept!" The T&C were in a separate scrolling 4-line text box, and was written in absurd legalese. I have no idea how Ty things that's going to be binding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:From a lawyer's perspective... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because let's face it, if everyone knew that Slashdot's privacy policy allows them to sell your email address and first born child (just kidding!), no one would sign up on the site
You mean you didn't create a once off, disposable email address for the purposes of registering? There's a bin for your geek card on the left as you leave the building, thanks!
On a more serious note, Slashdot is probably one of the few forums of its size where a significant number of members would be able to figure out exactly who leaked/sold thier email addresses, and it probably wouldn't take too many people pointing fingers at SF for doing such a thing before they started leaking subscribers. There's a difference between having no legal recourse and being helpless.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good idea. We should also re-write the various laws in unambiguous sixth- or eighth-grade English.
Re: (Score:2)
I read the first two sentences and stopped. You're right: reading is boring! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, dumb everything down. By law. That'll work. Don't do something about the lack of education, dumb it down! Why, oh why, does this remind me of Idiocracy ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/ [imdb.com] ) ?
Surely you don't believe that a law degree should become part of compulsory education?!? Because that's what it would take to actually understand some EULAs.
But something needs to be done. Since I can't imagine legal services becoming cheap enough that practically anyone can hire a lawyer for every little legal blurb they encounter, it's going to have to involve simplifying and translating the language from legalese to common english.
It may be something along the lines of invalidating any contract of adhesi
Re: (Score:2)
It may be something along the lines of invalidating any contract of adhesion that cannot reasonably be understood by the person it's being applied to. I'll bet that suddenly companies would find a way to make EULAs understandable.
While setting some complexity standard may be a good idea, "reasonably be understood by the person it's being applied to" seems like a pretty bad idea. It would basically allow "I'm sorry your honor, I am an idiot and have several character witnesses that will testify to that effect. I didn't understand what I was signing and, even though I signed it anyway, I cannot reasonably be held to its terms." to be a valid argument in court.
So which is it? (Score:2)
Privacy policies need a PhD to decipher, or just an bachelors? I'd love to run around saying I have a PhD when I only have a bachelors, since clearly nobody cares about the difference...
Dubious measure. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe it for a second - the measures used are dubious at best (try the Word readability macros and see for yourself - they do Fleisch-Kincaid scores too). At minimum, they have to be used properly. For instance, the single word text "communication" is so unutterably high on all the indices that it skews the results completely. And the text of Alice in Wonderland on Project Gutenberg scored:
Coleman Liau index : 28.19
Flesh Kincaid Grade level : 11.95
ARI (Automated Readability Index) : 21.61
SMOG : 11.68
So that's a hefty margin of error, removes all use of any average and says that you have to be a virtual genius to read Alice in Wonderland, or a 11th-grader. Mmm. Yes. Accurate measure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dubious measure. (Score:5, Informative)
I did - with several PG texts. Alice shows the most "variability" of the ones I tried between the different scores. Are these same grading schemes designed to cope with pages of numbered T&C's? I don't know. The point is that the measures are useless unless used under certain conditions and no effort has been made to ensure those conditions were met.
It's a poor application of what are basically statistical formulae on the lengths of certain words. What if the ISP's name was "BT" compared to "International Communications"? What if one ISP uses the "hereafter referred to as THE COMPANY" trick and one states the company name each time? It's a totally bogus measure. I could easily form any conclusion I felt like by playing with this "experiment" and it would be hard to argue against it without a basic knowledge of statistics. However, the article's approach is completely rubbish and anyone who looks at what those grades measure can see it's a waste of time.
That said, most ISP T&C's don't follow the "plain English" doctrine more than "we use long words". They HAVE to use long words, the technical descriptions demand it most of the time. I could reword any of those T&C's to be MORE difficult to understand, despite being perfect English, and get a lower reading score.
If you're gonna quote numbers about something, know what the numbers mean and how they apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Bravo! Someone who actually understands---and is able to cogently research and explain---some of the tricks that many algorithms use to trick people into thinking the programs are worth the ruled paper they're printed on! Nice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the PG preface? (Score:2)
Interesting results.
Please tell me you cut the legalese of the PG preface from the text before testing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the measures are poor because none of them take into account sentence structure, just things like syllable counts and sentence length. Things such as embedded clauses, inserted clauses, lexical chains (or lack of them), cohesion (particularly the presence of cataphoric references) and so on can all have a big effect on readability, and none of them come into any of the readability indexes of which I am aware.
A long sentence can be clear and easy to read because the information is presented in a simple
Writing quality... (Score:5, Funny)
Insight Communications, which at a level of over 20 years of eduction officially puts it onto IRS Code territory.
Slashdot, on the other hand, is sitting somewhere around a grade 3 level.... :)
Re: (Score:2)
Eduction is a fancy word for "pulling data out of a rear excretory orifice.".
Re: (Score:2)
If it's not, it should be. I'm using it from now on.
Re: (Score:2)
Face it, Masters is the new Bachelors and Bachelors is the new High School diploma.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you met many recent graduates? I'd say "eduction" sits right up there with the current requirements for a Bachelors :(.
Face it, Masters is the new Bachelors and Bachelors is the new High School diploma.
Can someone explain this to me? I live in the U.S. now, but grew up elsewhere, and I don't get how the university system works here.
When I went through university (outside the U.S.), I studied science: computer science, physics, calculus, etc. My friends who were doing anthropology or commerce studied, well, anthropology and sociology, or accounting and economics and so forth. There seemed to be an implicit assumption that the basics of reading and writing and history and anything else outside of your core
Re: (Score:2)
So the TA's who taught the
Re: (Score:2)
wt do u mn? we alwyz txt lk ths.
Re: (Score:2)
From my experience Slashsdotters appear to be above average ... but that is not hard since the average person on the internet should still be in school according to their reading and writing ability
Re: (Score:2)
the average person on the internet should still be in school according to their reading and writing ability
Actually, I think they should be in a straitjacket and confined to a mental institution, but that's just me......
Although it's really sad when the its-it's-your-you're-lose-loose massacring crowd at Slashdot is pretty much the best the Internet has to offer. :-/
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Am I the only one who thought that IRS Code territory is actually pretty simple. Pretty much a bunch of 4th grade arithmitic with some logic operators. Disclaimer: I only have ever had to work on my personal taxes, not corporate taxes.
Re:Writing quality... (Score:4, Interesting)
Am I the only one who thought that IRS Code territory is actually pretty simple. Pretty much a bunch of 4th grade arithmitic with some logic operators. Disclaimer: I only have ever had to work on my personal taxes, not corporate taxes.
That depends entirely on whether you're trying to follow the rules or circumvent the rules. I'm guessing 90% of the "misunderstandings" are more like "we thought we could get away with this, you mean we can't?"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True.
What about it. Though long, it was simple. Choose which category you belong to. Use a linear formula based on income. I stopped reading partway down, as I determined that the above referenced the section to which you refered.
Re: (Score:2)
You poor bastard....
This is news ...Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, as far as I can understand, privacy policies are there for legal reasons, written in legalese to give them a quasi-legal basis for defending their policies.
Unless you're a lawyer or have a lawyer present each and every time you agree to a privacy policy (assuming you even agree to it, most are just implied to "work"), then it's basically just embedded, textual bullshit to somehow protect the company from lawsuits.
I seriously doubt that a privacy policy would stand up very well in court, unless the judge is completely in the dark on matters of technology, in which case it's simply a matter of presenting the test case as a physical contract and seeing how it would stand up, or limiting the amount of power a privacy policy holds on a public website.
Disclaimer: IANAL
Re:This is news ...Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, as far as I can understand, privacy policies are there for legal reasons, written in legalese to give them a quasi-legal basis for defending their policies.
All contracts and contractual condutions are. Because in an ideal world they will never be used at all, because both parties have understood what the other party expected of them and are behaving accordingly. Those written things called contracts and conditions and licenses and stuff are there if something goes wrong, to actually define the scope and the limits of the contract or license or whatever.
But exactly because they are defining scope and limits, each party has to actually understand what they are defining as scopes and limits. So yes, on the one hand they are written for the lawyers to sort things out afterwards if something derails. But at first they should give the parties of the contract an idea what behaviour is actually expected of each of them. So it has to be understandable by the signing parties at first, and usable for lawyers as a second thought.
and they're only published in english (Score:3, Insightful)
Once this is taken into account is it any surprise that the vast majority of web users simply click "I agree" to anything they see
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I agree
me too
Privacy policies made easy (Score:2)
Just use this video [youtube.com] as a model. Should be easy enough to understand then.
BIG NEWS!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Undergrad != PHD (Score:2)
That would be a POSTgraduate degree
My Ph.D. finally pays off! (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew I was making those student loan payments for SOMETHING.
And, given my experience working with the typical American, it would be impossible to dumb down anything enough for most of them to understand anyway. When I was in college, I took educated friends and co-workers for granted. When I came out into the "real world" it was a bit of culture shock to realize that the vast majority of real people not only don't have college degrees, but also read at about a "See Dick run" level.
Misleading title (Score:2)
You'd only need a college undergraduate degree to understand these things, according to the description.
So privacy policies are great -- for BS.
How does /. do? (Score:2)
Number of characters (without spaces) : 19,080.00
Number of words : 3,465.00
Number of sentences : 178.00
Average number of characters per word : 5.51
Average number of syllables per word : 1.90
Average number of words p
You don't need to read much. (Score:1, Insightful)
Just read the part that says "No matter what this privacy policy says, we reserve the right to change any part of it in any way at any time without any notice to anyone, and the new policy will automatically and instantly apply to anyone who ever agreed to any other privacy policy we have ever had" and the part that says "we absolutely positively guarantee that we will not share any of your information in any way with anyone ever, except our business partners, which we define as 'anyone who gives us money'"
Submitter, you fool! (Score:2)
You have now given another generation of Students For Life a thesis topic for their PhDs.
I wonder? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone know the outcome of that case?
Re: (Score:2)
You greatly overestimate the accuracy of WGA and associated measures. It gives plenty of false positives, and nearly as many false negatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's so obvious... (Score:2)
I think as a rule, if you just educate people that free sites that take personal information are in the business of selling that information, the public would get the drift.
College Education != Intelligence (Score:2)
I think you're giving far too much weight to the average college education. There were people in my MBA classes that had maybe a 7th grade reading level...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot Posts & Privacy Agreements (Score:2)
If only Slashdot posts were like Privacy Agreements! Then I could edit them, at my discretion, on a later date.
Do not eat! (Score:2)
Interesting Legal Precident (Score:2)
It would be interesting to see a precident set that if a law (or contract/agreement/whatever) could be deemed to be not-binding if the language used to define it was either above the education level of the defendant/signer, or just above whatever the national average education level is.
While I know that ignorance isn't a defence, mental capacity is, so why not level of education? Just a thought...
Hey! (Score:2)
I read the IRS code for a living and I only have 19 years of education,* you insensitive clod!
* K-11th = 12, undergrad = 4, law school = 3
Law should not be that complicated... (Score:2)
Unfortunately I think we're wasting a lot of money on a legalist culture, I think we should just have laws that disavow certain kinds of things to be sued for to begin with, and we should remove corporate personhood as well and make the owners liable.
The whole problem is no one takes responsibility for anything, we live in a resonsibilityless culture, both in business and from consumers.
They bad ones harm the good businesses and good consumers in the process. It sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah. Totally off-topic, but Insight in Champaign-Urbana (University of Illinois area) are incompetent assholes (or at least were when I was in school there). They set up my apartment building with Internet service (after supposedly deceiving my landlord about the cost, which meant we paid three times what we had agreed to... although I think in reality the landlord probably misread the contract and blamed Insight to cover his ass) that put us all behind NAT. They accused me of being a pirate when I compl