var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
souhaite
February 9, 2007 6:19 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

What about that privacy clause is of concern? That last sentence, while inartfully crafted, covers circumstances where they are providing information to service providers who use it for IDT's purposes, not their own (it's the \"on our behalf\" language that indicates that). So they don't say they share it with other companies for other companies to market to you, just that they work with service providers on their marketing campaigns.

I'm a privacy lawyer, so I like to think I know what I'm talking about.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
orielbean
February 9, 2007 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ Souhaite - ?? How can you say that? The statement that states they share the info with their partners is the giveaway. Maybe IDT doesn't have their own marketing department, but be sure they hire outside vendors to conduct the exercises.

And these clauses clearly state that they give/sell/share your info to them. I can sell electricity and have a business \"partner\" who sells Twinkies. They may have nothing to do with each other's industry if but for the fact that both businesses have customers and sell things.

If I sell the partner my customer's info, they can sell Twinkies to my customers and mail advertising and call the houses, etc et al. That is easily construed as \"on our behalf\" if they share customer data between the companies - in that case the phantom nefarious Twinkie Dealer is providing sales leads to IDT in return.

As well, the definition of an affiliate is swiss-cheesy enough to meet that other low bar of partner or service provider.

And as a lawyer, you well know that the inartfully crafted wording is clearly an invition for double meaning. It precisely allows the company to imply one meaning yet keep the back door open for possible exploitation of tasty customer metrics.

The entire point of all the non-plain-language aka legalese found in contract law is due to people testing the contract and seeing if the vague wording you chose can be skewed to serve a different purpose than the spirit or intent. Do not spindle, fold, or mutilate this posting.

All of my suppostion raises one point here - and the same reason why the article was posted on this blog. The language is vague enough to open up exploitation possibilities. And given those sewer-grade card fees; it fits right in their business model.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
souhaite
February 9, 2007 7:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

If they are construing that sentence to mean sharing with partners for their partner's purposes, that language won't get them there. The FTC would clearly find that to be an unfair and deceptive business practices if, relying on that language alone, they share information with partners, affiliates, or anyone else for other purposes besides to perform business functions on IDT's behalf. I'm not saying a company like IDT wouldn't do that, I'm just saying don't ding them for that language alone. You're going to find something similar in every other privacy statement out there, from companies you do trust with your personal information.

Reply
");