This judge just F'd up trying to cover the gov's ass...

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • goBigtime
    Confirmed User
    • Nov 2002
    • 7761
    #1

    This judge just F'd up trying to cover the gov's ass...

    (text from slashdot)


    News.com is reporting that a judge has tossed out a privacy lawsuit against Northwest airlines. The plaintiffs claimed that their privacy was violated when Northwest gave their information to the government. From the judge: 'Although Northwest had a privacy policy for information included on the Web site, plaintiffs do not contend that they actually read the privacy policy prior to providing Northwest with their personal information. Thus, plaintiffs' expectation of privacy was low.'

    Full article here:
    http://news.com.com/Judge+tosses+onl...l?tag=nefd.top



    So basically that judge just established that if you don't read an agreement (that you are supposed to) then the terms of agreement don't apply to you.

    So I guess this makes the "Terms of Service" or "Terms of Use" links posted at the bottom so many corporate websites unenforceable now eh?... well, if you, the user, didn't read them anyway.
    Last edited by goBigtime; 06-16-2004, 07:51 AM.
    Tags: None
    • jm_247live
      Confirmed User
      • Feb 2004
      • 1536
      #2
      Interesting

      ICQ 280987151 [email protected]

        Comment

        • Gunni
          Confirmed User
          • Apr 2003
          • 2385
          #3
          That's not how I'm reading this, some guy pressed charges because he thought his privacy was being violated, the judge said you don't have a case and threw it out of court, becasue he hadn't read the TOS...

          TOS is valid and people have to read them

            Comment

            • goBigtime
              Confirmed User
              • Nov 2002
              • 7761
              #4
              Originally posted by Gunni
              That's not how I'm reading this, some guy pressed charges because he thought his privacy was being violated, the judge said you don't have a case and threw it out of court, becasue he hadn't read the TOS...

              TOS is valid and people have to read them

              The way I read it was just the opposite.... the judge dertimined since they DIDN'T read the privacy policy, they must not have been that concerned with their privacy....

              Or, in other words, if you didn't read the agreement, it doesn't apply.

              And no... people don't actually have to read them (and I would say most of the time theydon't... at least on corporate sites where it's just a link at the bottom of the page).
              Last edited by goBigtime; 06-16-2004, 08:03 AM.

                Comment

                • goBigtime
                  Confirmed User
                  • Nov 2002
                  • 7761
                  #5
                  But don't take my word for it....


                  "The rationale the court uses calls into question the assurances of any policy posted on any Web site," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, D.C.

                    Comment

                    • Gunni
                      Confirmed User
                      • Apr 2003
                      • 2385
                      #6
                      Originally posted by goBigtime
                      the judge dertimined since they DIDN'T read the privacy policy, they must not have been that concerned with their privacy
                      Yeah, that is how I read it as well, and that's why he threw out their charge. They were obviously not concerned enough about their privacy to read the TOS, so they did not have a valid case to press charges against the company.

                      Also if they had read the TOS, and still would have given their personal info, knowing what it said, the judge would have had no change but to rule against them

                        Comment

                        • JFK
                          FUBAR the ORIGINATOR
                          • Jan 2002
                          • 67369
                          #7
                          Originally posted by goBigtime
                          But don't take my word for it....


                          "The rationale the court uses calls into question the assurances of any policy posted on any Web site," said David Sobel, general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) in Washington, D.C.
                          This Just opened up a Huge can of worms !

                          FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX
                          For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

                            Comment

                            • goBigtime
                              Confirmed User
                              • Nov 2002
                              • 7761
                              #8
                              Originally posted by Gunni
                              Yeah, that is how I read it as well, and that's why he threw out their charge. They were obviously not concerned enough about their privacy to read the TOS, so they did not have a valid case to press charges against the company.

                              I don't think you get it....


                              The judge basically said.... since you did not read the agreement posted on the site, the agreement (in all it's benfits or burdens) does not apply to you.


                              You don't see how this decision effects a much broader scope of online agreements here?
                              Last edited by goBigtime; 06-16-2004, 08:20 AM.

                                Comment

                                • goBigtime
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Nov 2002
                                  • 7761
                                  #9
                                  Imagine this... most agreements state that in the event of a legal dispute, the legal proceedings will take place on the site operators home turf...

                                  Say I had a problem with Company XYZ...

                                  Now if I didn't read the agreement, and I had a problem with them, I could possibly file an action against the company in MY area and then when their agreement on the site saying we have to move to theirs is brought up.... I can just let them know that I didn't read that agreement, cite this nortwest airlines case & they would be up shit creek without an airline ticket to come meet me in court on my turf.


                                  Somehow I think this is just the beginning of that 'Some Guy Vs. Northwest & The Gov case.' I don't see how this could possibly be the final judgement in the case.
                                  Last edited by goBigtime; 06-16-2004, 08:26 AM.

                                    Comment

                                    Previous template Next
                                    Working...