SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-make-them-100-pages-long dept.
The key to turning privacy notices into something useful for consumers is to rethink their purpose. A company's policy might show compliance with the regulations the firm is bound to follow, but remains impenetrable to a regular reader.
The starting point for developing consumer-friendly privacy notices is to make them relevant to the user's activity, understandable and actionable. As part of the Usable Privacy Policy Project, my colleagues and I developed a way to make privacy notices more effective.
The first principle is to break up the documents into smaller chunks and deliver them at times that are appropriate for users. Right now, a single multi-page policy might have many sections and paragraphs, each relevant to different services and activities. Yet people who are just casually browsing a website need only a little bit of information about how the site handles their IP addresses, if what they look at is shared with advertisers and if they can opt out of interest-based ads. Those people doesn't[sic] need to know about many other things listed in all-encompassing policies, like the rules associated with subscribing to the site's email newsletter, nor how the site handles personal or financial information belonging to people who make purchases or donations on the site.
When a person does decide to sign up for email updates or pay for a service through the site, then an additional short privacy notice could tell her the additional information she needs to know. These shorter documents should also offer users meaningful choices about what they want a company to do – or not do – with their data. For instance, a new subscriber might be allowed to choose whether the company can share his email address or other contact information with outside marketing companies by clicking a check box.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 11 2017, @07:07PM
I'm blind, and I think this "color" thing these "sighted" people tell me about is a conspiracy by libtards. I've never experienced sight in my life, so I don't understand it. I think people who claim objects have "color" are mentally ill.
(Sorry. I know we have at least one user without eyesight here. No offense intended. It's just that the sighted users seem to be blind to other things. The gender-blind leading the gender-blind. It's amazing. But I guess having sight isn't an advantage if 99.99% of the world is blind. If you share things you've observed with this sense that 99.99% of other people don't have, you just come across as crazy, especially if your observations don't fit neatly with either "side" in this supposed debate about things that are just fucking plain as daylight. Then, of course, a bunch of SJWs, who are equally blind and completely misapprehending everything they've ever heard about wavelengths and colors, will make a royal fucking mess out of it all.)
(Hmm, I probably could have shorted that up by mentioning blind men and an elephant. However, that metaphor has never sat well with me, because it makes fools of the blind only because it presumes that the blind men are ignorant of elephants. Maybe I'm just overthinking it. What the blind men can't tell you, though, is that the elephant is grey, because colors are an SJW conspiracy, as established above.)
All except for the fact that at the biological level things are messy and you're just flat out wrong. But here I am trying to convince blind people of the color of the sky again.
Maybe that right there is true proof of my insanity.
Keep groping at that elephant. Hope it doesn't stomp you.