Gartner's top tip to data crunchers on the eve of GDPR? Don't be creepy Businesses risk losing millions from the investments they made in data and analytics if they don’t respect their customers’ privacy, according to Gartner research director Bart Willemsen. Speaking at Gartner Data and Analytics Summit in London, UK, yesterday, Willemsen said that organisations – and, crucially, those making …
We share information within the Gartner corporate family in the ordinary course of business
We receive referrals from users and others.
We collect or receive data from third parties, including, in some cases, publicly available directories, as part of our marketing and prospecting activities.
We do not respond to browser-based do-not-track signals.
For any of the purposes above, we share information with other members of our corporate family. We also share your information with third-party service providers that perform services on our behalf.
I wonder how people would like a site that contains copies of companies' privacy policies and terms of service documents with interpretations for the average user. I have considered setting it up, with document 1 being the windows 10 legal agreement *shudder*. It's problematic because, among other problems, the companies might not permit me to duplicate their text, and they could try to find a legal way to claim that I'm lying about the interpretations (by the way, said interpretations wouldn't be mine, they'd be summaries created by a panel of technically-aware and legally knowledgeable people). Let me know what you think, as I'll have to check in with my legally knowledgeable friends and get their opinions too. Oh, and find a way to keep it running if it is getting used.
Use lots of heatmap graphics to simplify things, as no one really wants to gain an in-depth understanding of Privacy / T&C. Who has time etc... What people want is a gauge of how risky a site is, or how risky a certain action on a site is. If firms threaten you, then switch tactic to that of the Onion or John Steward comedy. Use satire, but get your message across at the same time etc...
No point. The Windows 10 license agreement is actually fairly straight forward.
The 'problem' is that people don't like what it says, especially with regards to reselling and activation, and because it basically boils down to 'buy the expensive retail edition to do what you want' and 'a vm is another computer, and is separately licensed'
I always felt that Nail Gaiman and Pterry Pratchett's description of Ts&Cs forwarded to hell in 'Good Omens' was rather fine
Along with the standard computer warranty agreement which said that if the machine 1) didn't work, 2) didn't do what the expensive advertisement said, 3) electrocuted the immediate neighbourhood, 4) and in fact failed entirely to be inside the expensive box when you opened it, this was expressly, absolutely, implicitly and in no event the fault or responsibility of the manufacturer, that the purchaser should consider himself lucky to be allowed to give his money to the manufacturer, and that any attempt to treat what had just been paid for as the purchaser's own property would result in the attentions of serious men with menacing briefcases and very thin watches.
Some good points from Gartner for a change, even if they don't follow their own advice (see earlier post above). But Short-Termism is still rife... Move fast and break things means shitting all over your customers privacy. That's totally incompatible with sit down and read your own firm's privacy policy!
I very much approve of the message being given here and it highlights why companies are struggling with GDPR: they (the companies) have collected data based purely on whether it has been legal to do so - not whether it was necessary or appropriate.
The problem was that previous legislation did not actually respect the privacy of the individual so neither did most companies. The message from Gartner here is: look to adopt the mindset of privacy, not the specific legal requirements.
The reasoning, from a purely practical point of view can be easily explained: if you use some legal loophole to start hoovering up data and tossing it about at will, you'll face the same problem next time when (if) they close those loopholes.
Well, that's my wishful-thinking for the day. Back to reality.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
