How to write Privacy page?

The FTC does not "catch" people for having privacy policies. They enforce them though when violations are found. Some small sites have recieved fines in the six digits over them. Hosted by their own petrards. Serious enough for me, maybe not for you.

You did say 'the are not rocket science', and indeed they are not, but you did it in a manner the was mocking any need for a lawyer. Since they are a legal document, while they may not be rocket science, they do need do care and not flippancy.

Wait, show me where I ever said my best advice was to hire a lawyer? I only offered a counter point to your claim they were not needed by saying for some they are the best choice. I would have not even posted if not for you seeming to take them too lightly. You then start trying ad homien attacks about 'if I am worried about the FTC' and claiming I said my best advice if to hire a lawyer. Please quote that again instead of trying to mock my claim that the FTC has taken these pretty seriously in the past. Maybe for you being fined hundreds of thousands based on your own lack of care in writing and/or following your policy is a triffle , but to most of us that is serious money.

You seem to find contridictions in your mind that are not present.

 

Once again the ad hominem attack . Sorry I hate typing on this laptop keyboard. I could go back and spell check for you if you really don't get the words.... but I challenge you to find a word I used I don't know the meaning of.

 

I see you could not meet that challenge or the one I put in the post before. Instead you resorted to a negative rep. that just happens to be left at the same time as your last activity. I can see why you want to end the debate with the ad hominem attack. It is the device you seem most comfortable with, and after all those Dr. Evil quotes and roll eyes smiles tactics are just too compelling a case to debate once joined with the spelling and grammar police tactics. The logic just was overwhelming to go on against.

 

I am glad I was wrong about that then. I just happened to scan for new posts and saw that, then clicked over to the profile and saw it matches your last activity. Pretty amazing coincidence eh? You proof is not worth much given your position on the forum, but I will take your word for it.

You again completely fail to read what I wrote in your quote about logic, I was referring to the great logic you had been using.

As for spelling, I freely admit I don't take the care I would with a letter and other correspondence on the forums. Now as to the meanings, fine, I will take it as a $100 bet if I used wordS in a way the meaning did not fit in the post you are writing about.

Here is a spelled checked version for you:

 

Ok,

Pretty pointless posts (but entertaining nevertheless, and I learned what 'ad hominem' meant). But I think you should both just stop now as I'm sure you've both got better things to do. So make this the final post please.

 

final post! hah! in your face blitz

you

 

It's funny how any topic on the internet can be turned into an argument.

I was satisfied with that response. Reminds me about how anytime I read a comment "consult your lawyer" or "talk to your accountant", I think "oh no, I don't have a lawyer or accountant."

 

Not to distract from the flame war, but I am interested in the FTC actions. Did any of these involve situations where sites were doing the normal plain vanilla stuff most sites do (use cookies, collect aggregrated information, maintain registration information, but comply with COPPA, not collect private information secretly, not plant spyware or adware, not sell collected email addresses to spammers)? Or did they all involve situations where the site was doing something out of the ordinary like planting spyware or violating COPPA?

While the correct advice is always to hire a lawyer, and while I always advise people to hire a lawyer instead of relying on chit chat in a forum, I would have thought that the risks of writing your own privacy policy would depend a fair amount on whether you are doing anything unusual in terms of how you use people's private information. In other words, I would have thought that someone doing the plain vanilla things with regard to privacy and using a plain vanilla policy that they adopted from a model might be ok, so long as they didn't make any claims that varied from reality.

However, if the FTC is handing out fines to people who are just placing cookies and collecting forum registration info from adults, all because their privacy policy is carelessly drafted, things are different than I would have imagined. I would like the information on that so I can go look at my own privacy policies again, which might not be up to snuff if stuff like that is going down.

I can say with confidence that if anyone is doing anything funky with regard to privacy - including but by no means limited to planting spyware, pulling people's private info off their hard drives, selling email addresses, or so on - they had better consult a very good lawyer.

 

Well it was great fun reading this thread. I love a good spark now and again.

My 2 cents for what it's worth:
I agree with ViciousSummer that when asking for advice here, or any other forum for that matter, and getting a response saying, in short, "Ask an attorney", is pretty lame. (I'm paraphrasing) I mean I believe everyone can come up with that one on their own.
Having said that, it is vitally important to get the proper advice from the proper people in whatever field is in question; Law, Taxes, etc.

I've Learned so much reading this thread but I still have no idea what the heck "ad hominem" means.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

 

I'm not going to give any specific cases, I'll leave that up to jbw.

But the fact is that all it takes is one individual to file a complaint and the FTC will investigate for breach of policies. That can happen wether you hire a lawyer or not but in most cases you've got a better blanket of protection from a legally drafted policy.

Still, the only policy that is required (in the US) for a site is COPPA. It would be beneficial in the long run for a "plain vanilla" site not to have one at all.

There was an interesting study done a few years back that showed how many visitors actually read a privacy policy. The numbers were not overwhelming in any direction. Further in the study, only first time consumers who were interested in making purchases from a not-so-well-known site looked at any policies.

 

I didn't have one of these for years, and still wouldn't have it were it not for the occasional person won't leave me alone about it. Once or twice it was 'required' I have it, as part of something completely unrelated (like linkage) ... ?

I don't think it's that big of a deal, other than it's a royal pita and perhaps some revel in joy whilst thinking of putting the next poor fool through the procedure.

Worst part is you got to make it long enough to satisfy those few... The rest and the majority don't care, but a few do.
It's like OMG ohhh-kay fine I'll do it...

There, it helps stop the occasional questions.
In retrospect, it's along the same lines of an 'about' page, at LEAST as interesting and equally fun to create.
But oh yeah, you gotta have it.
Not that anything will change because of it,
but just because, it's required, see.

Btw, one of my main advertisers has no privacy policy.
They pay on time, doesn't seem to slow them down.

Oh yeah, just found this:
http://www.w3.org/P3P/implementations

 

They will? When did that start?

While the FTC is a highly professional agency that attracts some incredibly talented people, they still have resource constraints. Their responsibilities cover everything from antitrust to unfair business practices to consumer fraud, and they can't do everything. They pick their shots, and do investigations when it can have an impact commensurate with the resources required.

 

This has always been a fact.

"Using its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive practices, the Commission has brought a number of cases to enforce the promises in privacy statements,"

Above Quoted from the FTC on enforcement.

I disagree. Isn't the FTC is bound to investigate any and all complaints? And can they not incite other law enforcement agencies, or any of the private entities to which your complaint has been referred.

 

This is a pretty good example of why taking legal guidance from a forum like this is a very bad idea. The notion that any yokel can unleash the investigatory and enforcement powers of the FTC simply by filing a complaint betrays an enormous ignorance of not only how the FTC works, but also of how government agencies in general work.

No, the FTC is not required to investigate actively every complaint. An FTC investigation is a big deal, a very big deal. I expect that some human probably at least skims every complaint. But an actual FTC investigation is a significant investment of resources, and they launch investigations only when they think the problem is a big one that affects lots of people.

They can refer to other state and federal agencies. My guess is that a small, perhaps trivial, percentage of filed complaints get referred, and generally only when it looks like another state or federal agency is better situated to address the issue.

They do not normally refer to private attorneys. When the FTC files an investigation, it is not at all uncommon for there to be parallel private litigation, but that's not because the FTC calls up the plaintiffs' bar and tells them to get involved. It's because an FTC investigation is sufficiently important that the plaintiffs' attorneys figure that where there is smoke there may be fire, and they want to be in line to collect their cut on any civil damages.