So one of the comments on the post got my pressure up before coffee had a chance to kick in:
"It's just offline conversion events being uploaded so you'd stop getting these ads, or so they can market to you again in the future. You purchased this product, gave them a phone number.. Not sure where the issue lies? You agreed to the terms on Spreadshirt which is probably where you opted for marketing."
This is the basic approach. You give it to us. You agree to whatever we put in legalese and now we can do whatever we want. What?
It is disheartening, but I agree with the rest of the posts on HN that it is not at all surprising.
Devil's advocate for a moment: why can't the business do whatever they want with the data? It's not clear to me that I own the data in any single transaction with a business. I could see us both owning it, either shared or independently.
For VISA to sell transaction data, that's one thing. But a business that uses it to run their marketing, using transactions with their business? That seems less clear.
To further muddy the waters, if I can tell the business how they can use transaction data, shouldn't they also be able to tell me how I can/cannot use it? That seems like it would infringe upon bad reviews/etc., but it feels more consistent.
> But a business that uses it to run their marketing, using transactions with their business?
It's about informed consent. The businesses should at least warn their customers that they're doing this, and who they're ratting us out to. That way we can each make an informed decision about whether or not to use that business.
What would be even better is if not only would they have to tell you this, but that you could say, "No. I don't agree to this nonsense" and they would have to refrain. They wouldn't even be able to deny you service based on that. They would, of course, be able to use the data if they needed to fulfill the contract with the customer, or if they had some legitimate reason for using it, or if there was some legal requirement for using it. Otherwise they would have to get consent.
It would be a kind of General Data Protection Regulation. All joking aside, and as much as I've grumbled about implementing it at the company where I work, I really wish this was a thing world wide.
It is a good question to ask. I still am kinda struggling with deciding where exactly I stand on this.
In my case, it always seems to be some sort of invisible line that I can't quite articulate. For lack of a better term, it feels like transgression. For example, I give the business my credit card information, but I don't give them permission to use that card on anything other than that one transaction ( or more if recurring ). If I give them my phone, it is for the express purpose of handling my business. That phone is not there to be sold to the highest bidder.
For the record, I am agreeing with you. The waters are definitely muddy, but we need some sort of enforceable and enforced ground rules.
You are struggling to articulate why it's not okay for a company to quietly hand all of your purchases over to facebook without ever telling you about it or asking you if that is okay?
Neither. I am not certain where the line should be drawn. I am not a zealot. I evaluate both positions and see if there is a way to balance both interests. If there is none, I err on the side of the customer ( ie. me ).
And I am saying all this, because there is a reason for business to gather this information. I am willing to entertain an argument for keeping some of that data for efficient processing of my business. I am less charitable with hoarding data for no other reason than selling me more stuff and or outright selling that information to 3rd party to that in some other way.
So yeah. Neither. But there is a line. I just don't know where it should be.
It reminds me of a landlord who charged me $300 for returning my girlfriend's key late since she was out of town. I talked to him before and he said oh sure, no problem just bring it by the office... Then charged $50 a day. Of course, anyone decent would have warned me or not charged me. His defense for this was that "the contract allows me to do that".
In UK law some terms in a residential lease are considered Unfair and so you (a person) can't agree to them. The lease is read as though those terms weren't there. Landlords responded to this by adding a paragraph of legalese that says you (the signatory) know the terms are unfair but you agree to them anyway.
Judges went "I see exactly what you're doing here, No" and just struck the offending paragraphs and unfair terms.
Of course just because you'd easily win in court doesn't mean they'll stop bullshitting you outside court but some things a landlord might want to do (e.g. kicking you out) already require a figleaf of court approval, and the court ain't going to approve when the contract is clearly Unfair.
When I was younger and rented I ran into plenty of scumbag agencies who tried to screw me over. One of the most popular ideas back then was to charge a high fee for the "service" of photocopying your lease and writing new dates in. The Housing Act says if your residential lease reaches its end date but you're still paying and nobody sent you paperwork requiring you leave then that lease hasn't ended until they do. So no thanks, I don't want to pay £100 for photocopying. If you want this lease to run for another whole year you can do the photocopying and I'll consider signing but I'm not paying you for that.
The government eventually just forbade fees for residential tenants all together. If big agencies want £100 to make a photocopy they are welcome to try charging that fee to the person or company that owns the building instead of the tenant. As you'd expect despite dire warnings from the industry in the end it just stopped charging fees and took a small dent in profits.
Yes, in the state I was living in landlords often include clauses in the lease that are specifically banned by state law. for instance, we had a landlord to say that we had to give them 30 days to move out, but they could ask us to move out with only one day notice. It's not legal and not enforceable, regardless of what we signed.
However, the market is so tilted towards landlords that basically if you want to live somewhere, you sign it. However in court, these clauses would not be enforceable and might be enough to strike down the entire agreement, in which case the tenancy terms become default tenant law.
regardless of the contract, it's very difficult to say that this was reasonable and that he's not taking advantage of us.
I had actually already turned over my key, done a walk-through, and the house was completely empty. It's hard to argue that he needed to charge me $300 to returning a key late. If he had informed me of this, I would have been more than happy to replace the deadbolt for $20 and give him the new keys.
I actually did not see anything like this on the contract. It's also not clear if it's legal in my state. If it's in the contract and not legal, I believe the entire contract is void. In any event, this is a small fraction of the nearly $1,000 that he withheld from us. It was apparent that taking him to court was not going to be effective.
"It's just offline conversion events being uploaded so you'd stop getting these ads, or so they can market to you again in the future. You purchased this product, gave them a phone number.. Not sure where the issue lies? You agreed to the terms on Spreadshirt which is probably where you opted for marketing."
This is the basic approach. You give it to us. You agree to whatever we put in legalese and now we can do whatever we want. What?
It is disheartening, but I agree with the rest of the posts on HN that it is not at all surprising.
I just don't know how to approach it.