If No One Reads A Privacy Policy; It Still Means Gov' can have your info

[DaBees-Knees]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110408/16251213834/feds-say-it-doesnt-matter-if-no-one-reads-privacy-policy-it-still-means-govt-can-have-your-info.shtml

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.

"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."

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?

Twisted logic seems to be an essential part of law making these days.