Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday February 25 2019, @04:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the What-do-you-read,-my-lord?-Words,-words,-words. dept.

We should each take privacy seriously, even online, and there is a distinction between privacy and security. The latter is a choice, the former is a right. Despite that it is not feasible for most people to read the terms and conditions for the online services which they use, especially when these terms of service weigh in with multiple tens of thousands of words per document.

Private text messages aside, who really cares about data privacy, right? If your photos, contacts, calendar, email, browsing history, search history, musical tastes, files, thousands of status updates, likes, shares and physical movements are all in the cloud, who really cares?

Please read that last paragraph again and let it sink in – that is probably more data than your nearest and dearest have about you. Yet generally speaking, people don’t seem to be concerned that such volumes of data are out there and being used without our consent.

PayPal’s terms and conditions are longer than Hamlet! The vast majority of people will not have the time, or inclination, to read and decipher thousands of words in legalese to work out where their data is going. Ipso facto, this data is being shared without our consent, regardless of whether we have accepted the terms and conditions or not.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday February 25 2019, @07:20PM (16 children)

    by The Shire (5824) on Monday February 25 2019, @07:20PM (#806524)

    We should each take privacy seriously, even online, and there is a distinction between privacy and security. The latter is a choice, the former is a right.

    There is nothing in US law that guarantees privacy in your business affairs. And there is only limited legal protections when it comes to government intrusion on your privacy. I see a lot of folks getting on their high horse saying their right to privacy has been violated but there is no such right.

    If you're a lawyer and you know of such a right when it comes to online activity, please pop in and correct me.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @07:42PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @07:42PM (#806530)

    there is no such right.

    Except this one...

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.

    • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday February 25 2019, @07:44PM (8 children)

      by The Shire (5824) on Monday February 25 2019, @07:44PM (#806533)

      That's a protection from government intrusion, not corporate. As I said, there are only moderate protections from the government, you have none from anyone else.

      It's like the fundemental misunderstanding of what "Freedom of Speech" means - it doesn't mean you can say anything you want to anyone. It means the government can't stop you from speaking out against them.

      • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 25 2019, @08:06PM (7 children)

        by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday February 25 2019, @08:06PM (#806538) Journal

        While you are certainly correct, "rights" are not solely used to refer to legal rights granted by the government. One can speak of a "right" that one should have, even if it is not currently protected by the government or policed. Philosophers all the time discuss moral "rights," which are duties that should be granted regardless of their legal standing.

        I take your point that sometimes people confuse legal rights granted by the Constitution, which do generally have limited scope. But I would argue that we do have a moral right to privacy, and businesses that blatantly disregard it are behaving unethically.

        Yes, businesses behave unethically all the time. Maybe you would claim there's nothing to be done about that. But it is still a violation of my moral rights.

        Furthermore, even in this specific case, it IS a legal issue when a company attempts to bind someone to a contract where there is no "meeting of the minds" (to use the legal parlance). It's unreasonable to expect an individual person to read legalese the length of Hamlet in order to access a common service. If the company in that process claims rights over your data or your property that you did not understand according to contract law, they may have committed a legal as well as moral transgression.

        Simple test: if they included a random sentence in this Hamlet-length set of terms and conditions whereby you forfeited all of your property and money to PayPal upon their request, do you possibly think any court of law would uphold that clause legally? Of course not! So why should they be able to bury some sentences allowing them to use your personal information and data in a way that the vast majority of people wouldn't approve of?

        • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday February 25 2019, @08:48PM (6 children)

          by The Shire (5824) on Monday February 25 2019, @08:48PM (#806552)

          But it is still a violation of my moral rights.

          There is no precedent for it. Today, in the information age, we might desire a human right to privacy, but historically this has never been the case. Such a belief is an entirely new concept in the world and one that is certainly not embraced by the communist or socialist governments of the world today.

          it IS a legal issue when a company attempts to bind someone to a contract where there is no "meeting of the minds"

          In contract law it is expected that if the contract is indecipherable to one party then that party should not agree to it. There is no requirement for someone to join or use Paypal. If the contract makes you wary then you should not agree to it. You cannot, on the other hand, stipulate that you knew it was indecipherable but you signed it anyway. It's still legally binding.

          if they included a random sentence in this Hamlet-length set of terms and conditions whereby you forfeited all of your property and money to PayPal upon their request, do you possibly think any court of law would uphold that clause legally?

          A contract must be reasonable. In such a case it would not be enforceable. However, agreeing to allow Paypal to sell your transaciton history isn't necessarily unreasonable in exchange for the services they provide. The buying and selling of your information is not a new concept nor is it unique to Paypal. Companies like Google and Facebook engage in this market far more than Paypal, and yet we don't see anyone stopping them.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday February 25 2019, @11:59PM (1 child)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday February 25 2019, @11:59PM (#806682) Journal

            But it is still a violation of my moral rights.

            There is no precedent for it.

            Sure there is. You were just arguing with an AC about the Fourth Amendment, which put limits on government intervention into one's privacy. If I have the right for the government not to rummage around in my stuff randomly, surely there is also a possibility this could apply to a right to dictate whether a business has such a right as well!

            And philosophers and legal scholars have been talking about it for a long time. The Supreme Court has recognized a right to privacy in some contexts for several decades, making it the basis of fundamental rulings like Roe v. Wade and before that rulings on birth control. Former SCOTUS justice Louis Brandeis wrote an article on it [wikipedia.org] as far back as 1890. A lot of the debates about the "Right to Be Forgotten" have hinged on court precedents going back centuries that limit access to public data or specify that old data is no longer relevant. Libel torts have sometimes included "false light" torts, which were specifically about drawing unwanted attention to an individual -- such that misuse of personal data in a public manner could result in an actionable lawsuit, even if the information is true.

            And let's not forget Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [un.org] from 1948: "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

            Contrary to your assertion, people have been discussing this right for a long time, and it has been a formal part of many legal systems for decades before the "information age."

            In contract law it is expected that if the contract is indecipherable to one party then that party should not agree to it. There is no requirement for someone to join or use Paypal. If the contract makes you wary then you should not agree to it. You cannot, on the other hand, stipulate that you knew it was indecipherable but you signed it anyway.

            I think TFA's point -- and a good one -- is that it is unreasonable to expect any end-user to actually read the novel-length pieces of legalese everyone is subjected to regularly nowadays. We don't all have our personal law clerks. Courts and legislators are sometimes called upon to address such "common practice" when it is unfair and unjust, as it is here.

            Yes, no one is forced to use PayPal, though actually I have to deal with several organizations in my profession that use it, and though I don't have an account, I'm not sure if I'm also subject to their legalese. It wouldn't surprise me if there's some sort of BS other document I agree to just by the fact that I use their website to make a payment.

            It's still legally binding.

            Actually, that's precisely what's at issue, and my point that you seem to have overlooked. If it is completely infeasible for there to be a realistic "meeting of the minds" in these contracts because we are inundated with nonsense like them that would require us all to take full-time jobs reading contracts in order to use basic online tools, something is broken. There has been no "meeting of the minds." These contracts are incredibly problematic.

            A contract must be reasonable. In such a case it would not be enforceable. However, agreeing to allow Paypal to sell your transaciton history isn't necessarily unreasonable in exchange for the services they provide.

            That's your opinion. I absolutely think it's unreasonable.

            The buying and selling of your information is not a new concept nor is it unique to Paypal.

            Just because practices are common doesn't mean they are just.

            Companies like Google and Facebook engage in this market far more than Paypal, and yet we don't see anyone stopping them.

            I think they should both be sued into oblivion too. You may disagree. That's your opinion. But let's not go around trying to pretend no one has ever talked about a "right to privacy" before -- lots of people have in lots of contexts, and it's pretty clear lots of modern tech companies are falling over backwards to violate reasonable consumer expectations for privacy at every turn.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @01:19PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @01:19PM (#806894)

              The buying and selling of your information is not a new concept nor is it unique to Paypal.

              Robbery is also not a new concept, and certainly not unique to anyone. Does that mean it is an acceptable way to generate income?

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:04AM (3 children)

            by dry (223) on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:04AM (#806741) Journal

            There is no precedent for it. Today, in the information age, we might desire a human right to privacy, but historically this has never been the case. Such a belief is an entirely new concept in the world and one that is certainly not embraced by the communist or socialist governments of the world today.

            Oh bullshit. Besides the points made by AthanasiusKircher, here in Canada, the Supreme Court ruled that our equivalent of the 4th Amendment is a right to privacy. Not only that but rights here are actually something that not only government can't infringe on without a good reason, but neither can businesses.
            You guys talk about god given rights and yet you consider Amendments 1-8 to be the list, even with Amendments 9-10 and that it only applies to government. Sure private individuals/businesses have more reasonable reasons to infringe on your rights but it shouldn't be a blanket thing.
            Should a business be able to limit your right to free speech by banning certain types of speech during your break on their property? Seems to be fine in America, but not in most of the free world. Likewise with privacy, in the US, it seems private companies can do what they want on the principle that people can go elsewhere, even when elsewhere doesn't really exist.

            • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:54AM (2 children)

              by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:54AM (#806768)

              Ah yes, Canada, the country where people have the right to be themselves, that is unless you don't use the pronouns the law requires you to use, then you go straight to jail. Yea, there's a place where the government stays out of your life. /s

              • (Score: 3, Touché) by dry on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:36AM

                by dry (223) on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:36AM (#806785) Journal

                Citation? I'll call you any pronoun I want without worry besides embarrassment if I get it wrong, then I'll apologize, something Americans seem incapable off.

              • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:44AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:44AM (#806848)

                Fuch ye kindly back to the Shire, ye Anglish pig! I spit on your autonomy! I foul your breeches, unto before ye have the chance! I would kindly ask that ye address me with my official title, and preferred pronoun, or I will have your life! Poltroon! Knave thou't be! What a quarrelous frump you are!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @08:58PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 25 2019, @08:58PM (#806558)

    But USA is just one country.

    • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Monday February 25 2019, @09:29PM (4 children)

      by The Shire (5824) on Monday February 25 2019, @09:29PM (#806583)

      Other countries have fewer protections than the US. I double dog dare you to demand your human and moral right to privacy in China.

      • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:08AM (2 children)

        by dry (223) on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:08AM (#806743) Journal

        China is not considered part of the free world. Try it in much of Europe or a Commonwealth country.
        You sound like one of those Americans who go on about being better then N. Korea, find a really low bar and be proud you're not the worst while claiming to be the best.

        • (Score: 2) by The Shire on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:51AM (1 child)

          by The Shire (5824) on Tuesday February 26 2019, @03:51AM (#806767)

          one of those Americans who go on about being better then N. Korea

          China is not in any way comparable to North Korea. You sound like one of those snobby euro types who prefer to make false analogies because they can't refute the original argument.

          The EU privacy laws are little more than a cash grab. Meanwhile there are cameras on every street corner and rampant censorship of the net. The EU is little better than Russia at this point.

          • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:43AM

            by dry (223) on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:43AM (#806788) Journal

            They're both authoritarian regimes, so comparable.
            Anyways, glad to hear America doesn't have cameras, license plate readers or security screening as well as never censoring in the name of copyright, keeping boobies away from people or outsourcing censorship to private business.
            You really need to make a trip to the outside, perhaps to Bree.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:47AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:47AM (#806849)

        If you were a double dog in China, you would probably be in a stew. Careful, my young 學生, words have consequences!