Feds Say It Doesn't Matter If No One Reads A Privacy Policy; It Still Means Gov't Can Have Your Info
from the reading-is-not-fundamental dept
In the ongoing attempt by the US government to access Twitter info from some Wikileaks supporters, we noted that an odd part of the government's reasoning for why it should be allowed access to this info is that Twitter's privacy policy is evidence that users are willing to give up private info such as the info requested. That would seem to set a dangerous precedent, especially since almost no one reads privacy policies. The fact that such a privacy policy actually may apply beyond just the agreement between a service provider and a user, but to the government reaching in to access your info seems quite troubling.In defending these claims, the government is going so far as to say it doesn't matter if no one reads privacy policies, it still means that people have willingly allowed the government to access their info in this case.
In their brief the U.S. attorneys attack an argument from Appelbaum, Jonsdottir and Gonggrjip's team that they shouldn't be held to Twitter's privacy policy--which allows authorities to lift data like users' IP addresses--because it's unreasonable to assume that users have read it or any other of the dense policies they face on commonly used sites.But, of course, that seems to raise some other serious questions. The "privacy policy" is basically an agreement between the user and Twitter, not the user and the US government. Should the US government really be able to use the terms of such an agreement when it's likely that most people would not have considered the government a party to the agreement in the first place? And, does the government really want to establish a precedent that a policy applies even if no one has read it?
"The existence of the Privacy Policy, even if unread by the Subscribers, undermines the legitimacy of any expectation of privacy the Subscribers may have had in the IP addresses they conveyed to Twitter," reads the brief. "Although individual users might be ignorant of the terms of Twitter's Privacy Policy, society is not prepared to recognize as reasonable an expectation of privacy that is directly contradicted by policy statements available to all who wish to read them."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: privacy, privacy policies, wikileaks
Companies: twitter, wikileaks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
Looks like everyone is keep missing that small little print on the contract here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why I want the govt to shut down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: (from Velox)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: (from Velox)
Your forgetting the fact what the constitution was originally written for....
You people have been doped all along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe that will undermine the public confidence on the government so people get more vocal(dreaming) about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
someone please enlighten me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Isn't is public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By this logic...
Since when does any agreement with a private person, in this case a corporate person, give the government the same rights. Maybe I missed that part of constitutional law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By this logic...
My own 2c
I truly don't understand why clear language cannot be used for most agreements. At least public-facing agreements, I understand that the lawyers need to preserve their existence. If stated clearly enough, there -cannot be- loopholes or cause for confusion.
ex.
Privacy Policy:
Some non-personally identifiable information will be collected during your use of our service. This information will be used internally to help produce relevant ads and to make improvements to our service. We will not make this information available to anyone outside our corporation, ever.
3 sentences, middle school reading level (maybe), no loopholes. Whats the problem? Why is this so difficult?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: By this logic...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh?
No matter what TOS say and whether people read it or not, the assumption that when I am willing to give some info to someone it is not private anymore is so false... OMG, do you also get this itchy feeling in your stomach when you face this kind of argument? It's not just wrong, it feels like when you are in presence of really sick twisted mind. It feels like saying that it's OK to rape your wife because she agrees to sleep with you so I can sleep with her too.
I really hope I just misunderstood their reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also it shows another reason why the rest of the planet is understanding that the Bill of rights that the US is so proud of (and IT IS something to be proud of) is becoming more and more irrelevant day by day, and that places like Australia, New Zealand, European Union, and even Canada have more freedom and protection for the guaranteed rights of expression, privacy, quiet enjoyment, not to mention due process, than US citizens now have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@G.Thompson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@G.Thompson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@G.Thompson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: @G.Thompson
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The American government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dang!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isn't that opposite to what the law says?
Examples I remember from class specifically discussed whether a party was likely to read a statement and if that made it binding. I.E. lets say you park your car in a parking garage - the garage owner is normally liable for damages that happen in the garage to your car. Many garages print on the back of their ticket, or somewhere else obscure in their parking lot that "We are not liable for any damages to your vehicle." Even having that statement printed on a receipt DOES NOT MAKE IT BINDING.
Thats why I believe if someone had a decent lawyer and the desire to go against any of these big companies that expect their hidden statements and privacy policy's, EULA's and the like to be legally binding, they would definitely set a nice precedent for what general consumers are actually getting themselves into (or not).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not bullshit, but ignorance
Nobody credible is (or has been) running around saying that dynamic IP assignments lead to any kind of anonymity. It's neither logically nor technically correct, and in practice is very elementary knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Not bullshit, but ignorance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Government Hacking
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the EU being all privacy minded- I keep reading stories about how everything from your television to your trash is being monitored and regulated. I can pretty much watch whatever I want here and after watching the episode on recycling by Penn and Teller I do not recycle either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
policy
We do not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer to outside parties your personally identifiable information. This does not include trusted third parties who assist us in operating our website, conducting our business, or servicing you, so long as those parties agree to keep this information confidential. We may also release your information when we believe release is appropriate to comply with the law, enforce our site policies, or protect ours or others rights, property, or safety.
...
The part about law enforcement does bother me. But i have no clue on how to write this in order to protect my members. Does anyone have a clue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
privacy on twitter !!!
No it is not!
A "privacy policy" is what it SAYS it is, a policy, ie, THIS IS WHAT WE DO AND WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT FROM US.
It might say, "We 100% protect all your information"
or it might say "We make NO claims to your privacy and we will GIVE that information away to ANYONE who seeks it."
And if you are too stupid to read the policy, then you would expect it to be option No.2.
That is, dont expect ANY privacy, and this IS TWITTER we are talking about, its a public forum.
does the government really want to establish a precedent that a policy applies even if no one has read it?
Like everyone reads ALL LAWS, all Government policies before they comply with them, or have a reasonable expectation of what is "right".
Mike when was the last time you signed a contract that you did not read?
This seems in opposition to Mikes anti-copyright and "information wants to be free" mantra!
Or, does that only apply when it suits you Mike ?
What about your little witch hunt you ran a few weeks back where you went to great effort to find and name a senitor that voted on something you did not agree with.
You worked it all out, and eliminated 'suspects' (and named them as well), until you got your 'witch'.
Mike, what is YOUR policy of privacy ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]