I've discovered a funny thing about the really nasty sneakwrap terms -- they often disappear shortly after I write about them. And while that's a good result in the overall scheme of things, it does make it harder for us to continue discussing these terms as we go.
An interesting example of this has unfolded over the last few months. Back in June, I wrote a GripeLog column about the absolutely horrifying terms Hilton Hotels was using as both its online site usage agreement and privacy policy. Coincidence or not, barely a week later Hilton had changed both policies, removing the most offensive privacy terms from their site usage agreement and revising their privacy policy extensively.
Then last month I started hearing from a few readers who had noticed an article in an Internet community called CIOinsight. (I suspect CIOinsight might have pretensions to being more than an Internet community, but since that's how they chose to identify the GripeLog without further inquiry, I feel justified in returning the favor.) The story quoted the Hilton CIO at rather remarkable length about how dearly his company values privacy, and then ended with a reference to my story having criticized language in the Hilton privacy policy "which seemed to give it license to use customer information as it chooses."
Now, doing what I've been doing for all these years, I've learned not to begrudge the companies I write about engaging in a little damage control. So I was more amused than anything else about the story when it was first pointed out to me, particularly as it did contain one enlightening fact. It turns out that Hilton's Chief Privacy Officer reports not to the CIO but to the legal department, which explains a lot about why it took the company a year to replace their no-privacy privacy policy with something a little more balanced. When the same legal eagles that are in charge of writing the sneakwrap terms get to write the privacy policy as well, of course it's going to be one-sided and totally unfair.
But then I received a message from another reader who had just seen the CIOinsight story. "Hilton seems to be calling you a liar, so I am very disturbed that I can't find the privacy terms you quoted in your original story in any of the agreements from Hilton or its affiliates," the reader wrote. "I checked the 'update' link you provided the original terms, and it's broken. Unless you made it all up, I would urge you to produce the original so that we can help defend you."
Yikes. Defend me? While I don't believe Hilton is actually suggesting the language I quoted wasn't there, it does give me pause to realize there is no evidence to be found on the web now of what the Hilton documents said. This has happened to me before when discussing some particularly nasty EULAs that were changed after I brought them to light. Linking to an archival webpage doesn't work if the vendor decides it wants the archived pages taken down.
Back in June I did of course save a copy of what was at the time Hilton's dual-purpose document. Not only is that my standard practice, but that's what it, as the website usage agreement, said that I, as a visitor to Hilton.com, should do. "By using, viewing, transmitting, caching, storing and/or otherwise utilizing the Site … in any way, you have agreed to each and all of the terms and conditions set forth below," it said. "Please print and retain a copy of this Agreement, as it may be changed from time to time, for your records." Oh, by the way, Hilton's site usage agreement still says this and many of the other things I objected to in my original story -- it's only the privacy language that was lightened up.
Since this supposedly "binding legal agreement" insisted I save a copy of it, just in case it changed, it would certainly seem to be a copy I've come by legally. And, given that questions have been raised about those changes, surely it's only fitting that we make it possible for everyone to see for themselves. So in the EULA Reviews section of the GripeLog, I've posted the combined Hilton privacy policy and site usage agreement as I saved it on June 21, 2004. If we are to have intelligent discussions about the best and the worst of terms, we can't just let the sneakwrap rewrite its own history.
Read and post comments about this story here.
1:16:45 AM 
|
|
