California Looking To Protect You From The Scourge Of Airlines Not Mentioning Privacy Policies You Don't Read
from the i-feel-so-much-safer dept
Back in October, we wrote about how California Attorney General Kamala Harris was threatening United Airlines over Twitter, because their mobile app apparently didn't prominently display the app's privacy policy. California has a silly law that requires privacy policies. Now, Harris has actually sued Delta airlines over the same thing. Of all the illegal things that Harris could be going after, is focusing on mobile apps that don't prominently display their privacy policy really the best use of her time and my taxpayer dollars?The whole infatuation with privacy policies is, frankly, stupid. They do nothing to actually increase your privacy. Since the only thing they do is hold you to your own rules, they actually encourage companies to take your privacy less seriously, since to avoid possible liability, they're likely to craft privacy policies that aren't as strict. Furthermore, no one reads those things. Forcing companies to display a broadly written policy designed to limit their liability, which no one cares about and no one will read... just seems like a complete waste.
Of course, as we've discussed before, this is exactly what state Attorneys General do all the time. They pick some random issue they can grandstand about, and then pick on companies over those issues, putting all sorts of public pressure on them, solely for the purpose of generating headlines about how they're "protecting consumers" or some other bogus claim... and then they use those headlines for when they run for higher office. The Attorney General slot is quite frequently seen as a stepping stone to becoming governor, and so many AGs abuse the position with these kinds of legal threats and lawsuits almost entirely to be used as campaign fodder. It's sad and pathetic and does little to actually protect the public.
In Harris' press release about the lawsuit, she makes this silly claim: "Losing your personal privacy should not be the cost of using mobile apps, but all too often it is." But that's ridiculous. Just because Delta doesn't link to its privacy policy from the app doesn't mean that users lose their personal privacy.
The only encouraging thing here is that looking through the comments on the Ars Technica article linked above, they seem almost universally to be against Harris for filing such a silly and pointless lawsuit. Maybe, one day, we can hope that such pointless grandstanding is seen for what it really is: a cynical ploy to make an Attorney General look good in the press, rather than any legitimate legal issue.
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: california, kamala harris, mobile apps, privacy, privacy policies
Companies: delta
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There's "no evidence of real harm" FROM this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I guess I know how I can become my state's next governor...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Black boxes for cars. Some people want to know what they are storing, how they are storing and how it is being protected.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/12/08/0059251/black-boxes-in-cars-raise-privacy-conce rns
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'm pretty sure it says something like "We are going to take all of your information, track as much as possible, retain it forever, and sell it to the highest bidder if it suits us.", but, honestly, I have not read it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's "no evidence of real harm" FROM this.
2. It wastes taxpayer time and money to do so.
If that's not "real harm", please provide an example of something that is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's "no evidence of real harm" FROM this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'll answer that.
1) Everything they can possibly track
2) In the easiest to read format possible
3) "box", so it is protected from the elements by the plastic and/or metal case - duh.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
In that case I'll just have to sue you for not making it prominent enough!
Governor's mansion here I come! And then pay hikes 10 times my governors salary from lobbyists here I come 4 year to 8 years later!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
When the car goes in for service, they don't look at it to tell me what needs to be done. I had them my key, they scan it at the counter (nope - don't need a password from me or anything) and they tell me what trouble codes the car has seen since my last visit, if it is low on any fluids, information about my driving habits (yup - knew why my rear brakes were worn), etc. And I know the key knows my favorite radio stations (the other key has different settings), how much air conditioning I like, my height (yup - adjusts the seat for me), my recent destinations (NAV system shows different ones with the other key).
If someone had a scanner like theirs (which I am sure can be built from instructions available on the internet), they could learn a lot about me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There's "no evidence of real harm" FROM this.
And since when is Mike pro-corporate? He has said he'll support the MPAA and wish them success, but not when they're acting like a bunch of idiots trying to take away our fun.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
you forgot one thing
Politicians win, businesses lose. Customers gain little, if anything.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
2) @ "The only encouraging thing here is that looking through the comments on the Ars Technica article linked above, they seem almost universally to be against Harris for filing such a silly and pointless lawsuit." -- Really, Mike? A small bunch of obnoxious techno-geeks on one web-site is your basis for thinking you're on the right side of anything? HA. You're just a thoughtless product of chance in where you were born. Real people will likely be pleased with even the appearance of getting some clarity from a corporation over what they do with one's personal information, and won't care beans about "rights" of "corporate persons" as you believe in.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
Let's be honest, that is more evidence than you usually have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
1) Well I would like for the government to tell these businesses to shut up, but I don't want the government to force these businesses to expose their privacy policy to everyone! They can't force everyone to read these policies!
2) Can you can it with the ad-homs and attacks on him? No, wait, you'll be outta a job if you do so...
3) And what's this about obnoxious techno-geeks?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Forcing others to inform people about how they deal with privacy is a first step to see what will need to be mandated in the future or not.
I don't like laws that force others to do things, if it can be done without the better it should be the last resort.
But privacy is and important issue for me and while some people don't read those things, some do and they are the tripwire that alerts the rest of us all, also it can be very instructive to see what happens and find solutions to what doesn't happen but should.
Plus it is not that burdensome to write one, it may be risky for a company to do so because what it is written will be called to be uphold by others so it can be tricky, but it is also risky to not have others state what they are doing with private data they are collecting.
Which brings me to another point, this may be better suited to be implemented only by those who collect some type on information on users, if you don't collect any data or significant relevant data then companies don't have privacy issues.
It also incentivates companies to think about privacy, which I don't think is a bad thing.
Could I be wrong?
Sure.
So for the moment I will just observe and see what happens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
California Silly Laws
At any rate, my pet peeve is the stupidity and waste of money created by the environment wonks (who often go off half-cocked), epitomized by the dire warnings parking lots under hotels and other buildings must display about the 'terrible' hazards of automobile exhaust. The example I saw in Carlsbad was the lot under the Carlsbad Inn. It is close to the ocean, is open to the air on 3 of its four sides, and gets plenty of sea-breezes to blow the exhaust away, nevertheless it is plastered with silly signs. It is no wonder California is or was effectively bankrupt. Bankrupt treasuries go with bankrupt minds.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"info not sold. Is sent to HQ for tracking only."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem here is that the law doesn't actually do that. Because of the way the law is written, it simply encourages companies to have a privacy policy that they cannot possibly break. Rather than informing you about how they intend to use your information, they are forced to write a policy that gives them as much room as they can possibly perceive they will ever need.
Because of this, privacy policies have become a joke. Almost every one of them basically says they can do anything they want with your information within the constraints of applicable laws and if they decide to change their policy they can do so at any time, without notification, and make any changes retroactive.
Spending time forcing companies to divulge this bit of information is a waste. What is worse, this (and other) AG's are grandstanding this issue in the name of "protecting people's privacy".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: you forgot one thing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
- We collect the personal information you give us in your profile
- We collect IP address information whenever you visit
- We retain this information for 2 years
- We share your information with our partners
- We share anonymized data with vendors
- We share all information with government agencies
Then, at least consumers would be able to make an informed decision. In fact, if the list of items were standardized, browsers could tell you when sites did things you have decided make you uncomfortable.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, our world is far too complex for this almost ever to be true. Anyone that is a student of economics and has spent some time understanding incentives or penalties, understands that it is difficult to move behavior in the exactly the direction that you want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Mike makes so much wrong I can't refute it all in one post.
The key word, and why you're so, so wrong, is "appears". Yes, it "appears" to be in the public interest, but it's not. Anyone with half a brain can see that, which explains your comment.
Privacy policies are written to be in the best interest of the company, and specifically againsts the public's best interest. The AG's misguided efforts are primarily for her long-term benefit, and will result in no benefit to the public at all.
You're a fool to think this is the government protecting the little people from the corps you hate so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]