Recent Posts226
General Software Discussion / Re: YNAB moving to a subscription model
« Last post by 40hz on January 07, 2016, 07:49 PM »I am never upgrading to mYNAB.
from: https://www.youneeda...t.com/privacy-policyWe may disclose personal information that we collect or you provide as described in this privacy policy:
To a buyer or other successor in the event of a merger, divestiture, restructuring, reorganization, dissolution or other sale or transfer of some or all of our assets, whether as a going concern or as part of bankruptcy, liquidation or similar proceeding, in which personal information held by us about our Website users is among the assets transferred.-wraith808 (January 07, 2016, 08:14 AM)
I don't see a problem with this. I mean, that's assuming that you're OK with having your data stored on their servers in the first place (which I'm not). But how can they transfer ownership without also transferring the data they have on you? There'd be nothing worth buying if they couldn't also get the customers along with the product.
Imagine if your bank merged with another bank and you were suddenly without a bank account because they didn't include a similar clause about disclosing your personal information in the event of a merger.-Deozaan (January 07, 2016, 04:32 PM)
This is the heart of the problem. It came up already in several bankruptcy cases, and with a few companies that were selling off their assets in order to not have to declare bankruptcy.
What happens when you have a privacy policy that repeatedly assured your customers - or even guaranteed it (in those very words) that their data would never be sold or shared? Many people - and virtually every court - would interpret that as either a contract or an implied contract and therefore enforceable under law. So no worries come what may, right?
The answer is: not necessarily - and definitely not in the case of a liquidation or bankruptcy settlement. Sometimes the only asset a company has that creditors are interested in is the company's customer data. And courts have ruled that the interests of stakeholders and creditors trump the privacy rights of customers when a business is looking to settle debts or other financial obligations. And that applies regardless of whatever policy or contract the company had with its customers. In the case of bankruptcy, it was easy. Whatever deal you had with the company died with the company under current legal theory, and is therefor moot. In the case of a company doing a sell off, it's a little more nuanced. But basically the courts have sided with the people who have a financial stake in the equation over the people who were just customers. Privacy dies on the altar of commerce. Or so it would seem.
Most companies no longer make such promises. Not that it matters, because it doesn't seem to be all that enforceable. But either way, companies are now rewording things so that should something like that come up, it won't take up too much of their attorney's time to get such complaints dismissed.
It used to be said (when speaking of "free" services) that if you weren't the customer (i.e. paying money for it) you were the product.
Now it seems that if you deal with a business there's a very good likelihood you're going to end up being a product whether or not you're paying for what you're getting from them.
There are some people who would consider that emerging reality a form of progress. Such people are called asshats.
