RE: Intended usage notification

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> This is not intended to be binding, so liars will be free to do that.

Then what's the point?

The good sites aren't the ones that are going to be a privacy risk for 
users. The ones that are the problem are the malicious sites that are 
going to, I dunno, sell the location of rich people using their site to 
organised thieves. And those are the very sites who will lie.

In other words, there are two kinds of sites, and two kinds of prompts:

                    Prompts that are honest    Prompts that are lies

   Sites that are   The prompt doesn't         Won't happen, since
  trustworthy and   matter, since the user     the sites are honest 
won't do anything   won't be screwed           (by definition)
bad with the data   either way

  Sites that want   Won't happen, since        The prompt doesn't
    to abuse your   the sites are dishonest    matter, since it is
    location data   (by definition)            a lie

> This establishes a common expectation from users.

That's the problem. It leads users to believe a prompt that can just as 
easily be a lie.

It would be the equivalent of teaching users to give their credit cards to 
random strangers based purely on the excuse the strangers give, instead 
of training users to look for other clues, such as the reputation of the 
site, to make their decision.

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

Received on Thursday, 26 March 2009 22:06:40 UTC