Is A Creative Commons for Privacy Possible?
There was a lot of great feedback for my post Making Privacy Policies Not Suck. We are now in conversation with a whole slew of industry leaders and deep thinkers in the area of privacy (Lorrie Cranor, Jonathan Zittrain, Lauren Gelman, Ryan Calo to name a few).
With all of the work that’s been done before us, I wanted to touch on some of the way our thinking and position breaks from the mold.
Bolt On Approach
Privacy policies and Terms of Services are complex documents that encapsulate a lot of situation-specific detail. The Creative Commons approach is to reduce the complexity of sharing to a small number of licenses from which you choose. That simply doesn’t work here: there are too many edge-cases and specifics that each company has to put into their privacy policy. There can be no catch-all boiler-plate. We seem to have lost before we begun. There’s another approach.
Here’s where we stand: Companies need to write their own privacy policies/terms of service, replete with company-specific detail. Why? Because a small number of licenses can’t capture the required complexity. The problem is that for everyday people, reading and understanding those necessarily custom privacy policies is time consuming and nigh impossible.
Here’s the solution: Create a set of easily-understood Privacy Icons that “bolt on to” a privacy policy. When you add a Privacy Icon to your privacy policy it says the equivalent of “No matter what the rest of this privacy policy says, the following is true and preempts anything else in this document…”. The Privacy Icon makes an iron-clad guarantee about some portion of how a company treats your data. For example, if a privacy policy includes the icon for “None of your data is sold or shared with 3rd parties”, then no matter what the privacy policy says in the small print, it gets preempted by the icon and the company is legally bound to never sharing or selling your data. Of course, the set of icons still needs to be decided (we’ll be having a workshop on the 27th of January to help figure it out).
This method means that without ever having to delve into the details, everyday people can glance at the simple icons atop a privacy to know if and how their data is being used. At the same time, it gives companies the flexibility required to create comprehensive and meaningful policies. We’ve found a way past the deadlock.
Nobody Will Use the Bad Icons?
Some of the Privacy Icons will have potentially a bad normative value, like the icon that indicates your data may be sold to third parties. The icon might even look scary. The question becomes, why would any company display such an icon in their privacy policy? Wouldn’t they instead opt to not use the Privacy Icons at all? This is the largest problem facing the Privacy Icons idea. Aren’t we are creating an incentive system whereby good companies/services will display Privacy Icons and bad companies/services will not?
If Privacy Icons become widely adopted (and I think Mozilla is in a unique position to help make that happen) then the correlation of good companies using the icons and bad companies not using the icons becomes rather strong. If a privacy policy doesn’t include any icons it’s synonymous with that policy making no guarantees for not using your data for evil. The absence of Privacy Icons becomes stigmatic.
Asking people to notice the absence of something is asking the implausible. People don’t generally don’t notice an absence; just a presence. The solution hinges on Privacy Icons being machine readable and Firefox being used by 350 million people world-wide. If Firefox encounters a privacy policy that doesn’t have Privacy Icons, we’ll automatically display the icons with the poorest guarantees: you’re data may be sold to 3rd parties, your data may be stored indefinitely, and your data may be turned over to law enforcement without a warrant, etc. This way, companies are incentivized to use Privacy Icons and thereby be bound to protecting your privacy appropriately. With Firefox growing past 25% market share, we are in a position to affect critical-mass adoption.
There are other options as well; like crowdsourcing tentative Privacy Icons for a website whose privacy policy does have icons yet (and deferring to the company’s as soon as they put them up).
Lawyer Selected, Reader Approved
Since it’s release, Creative Commons has continually pared down the number of licenses it provides and is now down to just two icons, one with two states and one with three. It has to be so simple because everyday people choose their own license. Privacy Icons don’t have that constraint. A qualified lawyer chooses what icons to bind to their privacy policy, and so there can be substantially more icons to choose from allowing the creation of a rich privacy story. As long as the icons are understandable by an everyday person, we are golden.
Next Steps
This blog post lays out the groundwork for how we are thinking about crafting Privacy Icons. We still need to figure out what the icons and their states will actually be (as well as if this approach makes sense). Ahead of the Federal Trade Commision Privacy Roundtable, we will be hosting a workshop to discuss and creating solutions (or at least next steps) toward a more meaningful privacy framework over the web.
Update: The workshop was a huge success. You can see the outcome here.
RT @azaaza Is A Creative Commons for Privacy Possible? | Follow @azaaza on Twitter | All blog posts
Justin Sinclair
I favour simplifying terms of service and privacy policies. And, I agree, Mozilla is in a unique position to encourage this. But, isn’t it malicious to identify a service as a “bad company” if it hasn’t implemented Privacy Icons. Non-implementation could be an active decision or ignorance of the mechanism. I think punishing ignorance is never a good idea.
rent a car bolu
We are rent a car firm in Turkey. Bolu is a koprü amk Istanbul to Ankara. If you come to Turkey, we can rent to you a car.
aibü
Üniversitemizin öğrenci grubunun oluşturduğu sosyal ağ sitemizde ( http://www.ibusosyal.com/ ) gerekli içeriği bulabilirsiniz.
telefon dinleme
But I would have to get my foot out of my mouth cause how would I categorize quality of life. They may be in poorer living conditions but they could be happier than I am because of their belief system. So alas I don’t know. This is what blogs are for.
tjktv izle
hacı çok doğru söylüyon bakalım nolcek
psikolog
çok süpermiş ya sevdim ben bu işi.
temizlik firmalari izmir
I agree. Sometimes the less you know the better off you are….quote from a Bob Seger song “wish I didn’t know now what I didn’t know then”…and I was much happier as a kid, more ignorant for sure but much happier… I wasn’t born an atheist…it’s just something that evolved from believer to agnostic to where i am now… My dogs (present and past) represent some of the happiest creatures on the planet and none of them can read or write although it is interesting that DOG is GOD spelled backwards…:)
Asa Dotzler
Justin, today, if you make money and you have a website related to that, you’ve got a privacy policy. It’s simply too dangerous (legally) not to. If you’re at all concerned about search engine ranking, you have a privacy policy. Pretty much every site has one and those that don’t would develop one (or copy from some template somewhere) the moment they started being penalized (in the browser) for not having one.
There’s just no good reason not to have a privacy policy and if you’re going to put up a privacy policy, then adding the machine readable parts is not a lot of extra work to not be identified as not having a policy.
One thing that Firefox can and should do is be the “user’s agent” — to help as best it can in protecting people while they use the Web. Telling a user “this site has no privacy policy and so it could do anything with your data, including a, b, and c.” seems to fall squarely within that mandate.
It’s not really a punishment either. It’s telling the person visiting that site exactly what he or she needs to know, which is that this site either didn’t care enough about her privacy to post a policy or it purposefully chose not to tell her how it was going to use her data. Either of those should warrant concern and I think Firefox would be right to provide some form of warning there.
webmage
Hm… maybe it’s just me, but I don’t really follow the argument. I mean, if I was a “bad company”, I’d just design a nice privacy icon just to make my site look like a “good company”. Right?
savassahin
How can I use creative commons?
Justin Sinclair
Asa, I understand what you’re saying. I agree that the browser should empower the user rather than miscellaneous organisations. But, I can’t shake the feeling that this seems a bit like stand-over tactics.
There is a significant difference between absence of machine-readable privacy settings and explicitly set machine-readable privacy settings. And I think this issue would be particularly bad in the early-days of introduction. I picture the number of active legacy websites, forums etc who have no explicit knowledge of the sites underlying implementation suddenly being identified as potentially malicious and not knowing what to do about it. I feel this would be a disappointing outcome for a browser feature that is supposed to empower.
Interestingly, this is sort of the reverse of https in the browser. Websites that implement https with a valid certificate get identified with a positive browser glyph. Websites that implement https with a bad certificate are identified with appropriately scary warnings. But, importantly, websites that don’t implement https are not identified in any particular manner.
Having said all this, I’m not trying to be a downer. I’m firmly in favour of explicit and simple identification of privacy. The current situation of obscure, hard-to-read, or simply absent privacy policies encourages ignorance until something blows up in a big way.
Justin Sinclair
A quick clarification. I’m not trying to hold up the current https implementation as a good user-experience. For one, it’s so obscure that the majority of the population are not be able to explain it.
Pimm Hogeling
webmage, the post states “if a privacy policy includes the icon for “None of your data is sold or shared with 3rd parties”, then no matter what the privacy policy says in the small print, it gets preempted by the icon and the company is legally bound to never sharing or selling your data.”
So, if a company uses one of the icons that are about to be designed, they are legally bound to actually do whatever the icon says that they are already doing.
Obviously a “bad company” might design their own icon. This could be what you meant in the first place. I think that might be worse than not having an icon at all. A 45-year old mum might fall for such an impostor icon; but you and I will not. We will see that the icon is fake, and immediately label the website evil. Not evil in a sense that it sells your information: evil in a sense that it lies to you. I think the latter is worse reputation than the former.
m green
As an attorney interested in information privacy, I think you got something going here. How can I stay in the loop?
Gerv
I think Privacy Icons are a great idea in principle, but I don’t yet know if they’ll get sunk by the practicalities. As you imply, there are two ways of doing it – “icons indicate good practice” and “icons indicate bad practice”. If you go with the former, then you have the “you have to notice the absence” problem. If you go with the latter, you have the “why would people use it” problem. I like the idea of using Firefox to solve that second problem.
However, I think there’s a conflict between the following two ideas in your proposal:
“no matter what the privacy policy says in the small print, it gets preempted by the icon and the company is legally bound to never sharing or selling your data”
and
“There are other options as well; like crowdsourcing tentative Privacy Icons for a website whose privacy policy does have icons yet (and deferring to the company’s as soon as they put them up).”
This would mean you’d need to distinguish between the company-approved legally binding versions of the icons, and the crowdsourced, best-effort versions. Which defeats the point of the crowdsourcing a little bit.
This isn’t a proposal killer, just something to bear in mind.
Gerv
r4i software
The problem comes when we try to think of privacy as a binary secret. Far from it, privacy in the offline world is very nuanced and contextual. I may trust some people with certain information, but I have a right to be upset if they breach that trust. The same is true online. Social networking services market certain features for privacy control, and we should hold them fully accountable. Likewise, our trusted friends and family need to understand that it doesn’t matter whether we whisper in their ear or post it to only three people on Facebook.
Axel Hecht
The concept sounds cool, I’m a tad concerned about details, though.
Can we check that things like “icons trump text” is actually legally possible around the globe? There are strong variations globally on when you’re actually entering a legal contract to begin with, and I bet there are differences on how such a contract needs to be phrased. In a related matter, I’m clueless on what is governing law when I in Berlin use a site in Germany, within the EU, or the US, or Iran (to arbitrarily pick a country where there are likely no or sparse bilateral contracts). And whether the practical implications of the governing law on the statements of the icons can lead to confusion. And more confusing, how to keep that context up to date.
Paul M. Watson
Just on the “bad” icon assignment problem how about having a Privacy Icon directory that anyone can use to assign icons to any company? It wouldn’t be legally binding but it would allow people to look-up companies before they sign-up and would, hopefully, spur companies to use the system to counteract mis-assignments or explain why they “sell your data to 3rd parties.” Firefox could even automatically query this directory when you visit a site and display its icons in the Awesome Bar like an SSL cert.
Obviously there would be problems with a user contributed directory but lets not get bogged down in that, it is working well enough for Wikipedia.
sep332
Icons are a good idea, but I really don’t think it should be up to Mozilla to enforce them. At least, you should have a lot more room between “having an icon” and “being evil.”
Bertil Hatt
As someone who has been arguing for that for the past three years, “extatic” doesn’t begin to cover my enthusiasm to see you starting to draft it.
To answer most of your concerns, that seem rather Chicken & Egg, I think you should implement it as an extension first and signal to the websites most visited by those who use the extension what your browser over-lay unless they use proper meta-data: presumably, those used by privacy-concerned people are privacy-aware website, so they’d understand and be delighted to be beacons of fairness on-line. From there, you’ll be able to move towards the less savvy users—and maybe other browsers: I’m sure Google will be happy to use Chrome to insist on how respectful they are of their users’ privacy (as lovingly respectful as Don Giovanni was to women’s virtue).
I’d love to respect (CC)’s two-icons simplicity; however, if I count properly, you already have three (will demand warrants to authorities; will store your details at personal level; won’t resell it with others) and I can think of three more that would be necessary, simply because they can defeat any of the previous one entirely:
* some employees have full access—what if that employees stores it (and leave)? Company is legally safe, your data is not;
* publish de-identified or aggregate version of your data (for research purposes)—What if un-scrambling or re-identification algos become better;
* we will give your the opportunity to erase your data if we change our policy, sell out or contact in any way with another company—Because buy-out is the usual way-out.
And attacks trigger another wave of concerns: will the company warn, or even be able to assert, what the extend of the attack was? Are they using fake users to track stollen data?
Last point: apart from employee access and erasing (neither you’d include in your default set), Facebook would have the best privacy badges: they don’t sell data, they just sell aggregates and targeted ads. However, that service has been massively associated with privacy issues: mostly apparent stalking (because of lack of control or context collapse) and some over-blown identity theft case. Giving your best grade to a company associated with suspicion won’t help you at first.
I’m sure you can pool some of those together (won’t reveal your information to anyone, not even with money, unless they have a US warrant / unless we share that money with you / etc. — or — will warn you of any buy-out, legal inquiry, etc. 24 hours in advance) but that might get confusing.
Sorry to make all those points now, but as a European, I won’t be able to be at Mozilla next week. Oh: and be sure those icons make sense in Europe where “Free speech” exclude hate-speech.
Bertil Hatt
Oh — am I the only ont wondering how 4chan will take the news? I already can see the icon “We *will* use your IP to hack into your ISP, figure out you name and hack back into Police files to add you to the terrorist watch list. And we will send Mike Tison’s wife 150 roses under your name.”
Michael Hanson
@Bertil Hart: Facebook is a high-profile site, but, as you note, their privacy policy has been carefully constructed to hit the right notes. The problem that many users have with Facebook is understanding their complex “privacy settings” system and the shifting lines of what data can be made private on a per-user basis.
The privacy icon system being proposed here is not directly relevant to that problem, because it wouldn’t help much with per-user settings. If you’re interested, please check out the Mozilla Labs Account Manager project (https://wiki.mozilla.org/Labs/Weave/Identity/Account_Manager) which is working to improve the transparency of per-user account settings.
If I was going to highlight a recent privacy issue that the Privacy Icon system could help with, it would be the Sentry/FamilySafe debacle. In that case, a content monitoring program, installed by parents to restrict their childrens’ Internet usage, was logging all of the childrens’ chat and IM traffic and selling keyword analysis to advertisers. (Also: there are special US laws regarding the privacy of under-13 children, which complicates any iconography, and I’m sure other countries have similar laws)
(More at http://epic.org/privacy/echometrix/ and by searching on “Sentry FamilySafe privacy”)
When you’re thinking of the target user for this, think of a concerned parent of an 11-year-old kid, trying to make a snap decision about whether to let the kid sign up for HappyFunDragonWorld.com, or whether to install “Super Safe Internet Pro”. They’re going to think about it for about five seconds.
Staś Małolepszy
Similar to Gerv, I see some conflicts in this suggestion. If the client (Firefox or an extension) was allowed to display the icons with poorest guarantees on websites with no icons, then these icons shouldn’t supersede the actual privacy policy (because the client doesn’t know what’s written in it). Instead, the client should probably notify the user in some smart way that it hasn’t found the icons on the website which may mean (but doesn’t have to) that the privacy policy is not good for the user.
Kaliya Hamlin
Yes this is a GREAT idea. We have been talking about this idea for many years in the identity community – thing is apparently it will take hundreds of thousands of legal work and a bunch of great design and usability testing. It needs to be done. I co-wrote a paper with Phil Windley & Aldo Castenada in 2006 “Identity Rights Agreements and Provider Reputation. Identity Commons Position Paper.” http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/papers/26-idcommons for a W3C workshop on usable security http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/papers/
http://www.w3.org/2005/Security/usability-ws/papers/
The Data Portability Projects is also working on this idea right now and ways to support sites clearly articulating their data portability policies. http://wiki.dataportability.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=4490392
sep332
How do you represent opt-in privacy options? Click here to get updates from our partners / Pay extra to avoid ads, etc.
Product Guy
The entire set of compliance icons should be visible. If the site ranks as positive for a particular report page, the icon should be shown at “full strength” in black. If not, the icon will be shown in a disabled state, in grey.
Each icon should be linked to a report page about the publishing site and the specific privacy feature represented by that icon. The report pages could have a top section filled out by the site operator (or perhaps by any user) that lists the evidence that the site complies with the concept indicated by the related icon. This evidence might include an excerpt from the site’s Terms of Use, a screenshot from privacy settings, etc. Beneath this section, the general public could contribute comments about their experience.
The icons and report pages would ideally be hosted by an impartial third party.
With a system like this, site publishers don’t have to decide which icons to include (and which to omit). Site users can understand which privacy features are supported, and get a sense for the full spectrum of features — not just those merchandised by the publisher.
Ralf Bendrath
There is already a draft set of privacy icons: http://bendrath.blogspot.com/2007/05/icons-of-privacy.html.
matt
love the idea. Isn’t the FCC responsible for all opt-in opt-out content to begin with? Couldn’t they regulate all national companies by mandating that these companies use the suggested icons to warn consumers? i believe getting the fcc on board is a step in the right direction-
Fran Maier
This is a great opportunity to discuss what can be done to give consumers better information and better choices. TRUSTe has more consumer-friendly and actionable Privacy Policy Generator (PPG) and resulting privacy statements aimed at the SMB market (most of the time they just cut and paste someone else’s privacy policy).
Here’s a live example:
http://www.globaloneelectronics.com/
http://privacy-policy.truste.com/verified-policy/www.livewiresupply.com (if you click on the privacy policy link you will see the new policy, if you click on our seal you will see the validation page)
We’d love feedback and an opportunity to discuss future direction in this area.
karl
There has been a lot of work done around this idea in the past but in a different form: P3P = Platform for Privacy Preferences
Basically it is a format for declaring the policy of the Web site in a standard format http://www.w3.org/TR/P3P11/ . It doesn’t solve all the issues, and there has been argument in the past that there was misunderstanding between the fact of “having a declared policy on the site” = “I’m protected”. A bit like I put my belt in a car, so I’m protected against car crash.
As many people said, it is very hard to have evil icons, because most bad sites will not put them. On the other side, if you have good icons, you will have people putting them to mislead people.
The other strategy is the browser telling the user, this site has a policy (cf p3p) but which leads also people to make sometimes the shortcut to “I’m safe”.
Trust is a shortcut mechanism for being able to live. We decide to abandon doubts, verifications (aka to have faith and trust) because we need to go faster. I check the baker when she is giving me my change, because 1. the risk is low, 2. I trust the person after repeated actions alike.
It is usually long to build and very quick to destroy.
It is also a mechanism which works with being local and/or having a legal framework to act on it. Local = physical proximity (a friend, a shop owner, etc), I can act now and effectively if something is happening. Legal framework = I have recourse in case of bad things happening.
One of the issues right now is that most of the big sites would have a terrible reputation if people understood what would happen with their data, and this will be very hard to change. A new system will help to protect against bad small sites but not necessary against the big ones.
A possibility maybe could be a kind of local p2p *real* friends mechanism. This has its own issues too. Who is your real friend? How do you game the system? etc.
ps: It seems for example that Mozilla doesn’t have a declared P3P policy. http://www.mozilla.org/P3P/
Janson
At best, it’s integrity can be that of WOT, which is pretty decent.
Kadir
My take on the issue: How about reserving space in the browser’s chrome for those icons. If a given website supports a privacy feature we fill the icon (like the bookmark star in the location bar) or it could be green for “privacy feature is supported” and red for “not supported” (although that’s a problem for the colorblind). So the icons should always be present and just change appearance based on supported/not supported
Michael
I suggest coloured rings around logos to indicate their source:
green: site-provided
yellow: crowd-sourced
red: defaulting to nasty
Still has the colour-blindness problem, but shaping or dashing might help.
The privacy icons mentioned by a previous poster show just how complicated the issue really is. In fact, the situation seems so bad that it might be best to have users set their tolerances and get a ‘threat level’ indicator. Setting okay and not-okay levels for each class of privacy issue wouldn’t be too hard. A more advanced option would be to have different settings for different types of sites (search, social, commercial, porn, random-place-I’ll-never visit again, etc.).
Mark
How on earth does someone/ abrowser decide if a website actually meet its privacy statement.
If I say “I will not sell you data to third parties” who decides if I do or don’t? A browser will certainly have no idea.
People might maliciously claim that I do when I don’t. Or, I might sell it but noone ever reports it.
Who will act as judge? And that will take money. So then it becomes a case of whoever has deep pockets will buy the icons. then noone can trust if they are genuine.
Sorry chaps cannot see this working at all much as it would be ideal its completely impractical.
Philip Sheldrake
Hey Aza,
We haven’t met, although I worked with the Mozilla Europe marketing team from 2003 until June last year. In fact my team won Best European Tech PR Campaign 2008 for the FF3 launch :-)
I’d love to contribute to the work here. I too posted on the topic of privacy last week, albeit in the form of a new website at http://www.forgetweb.org.
As for Mark’s comment above, ones like it are too numerous. But lucky for us we didn’t listen when many said the browser war was over.
buy pro duo 16gb
I think the Tech Policy Summit is one of the best (new) parts of CES. Glad to hear there was give-and-take in some of the other sessions.The commentary was more about the general approach taken by CES, which, after all, paints us as consumers right in its title.
Mario Carneiro
@Mark: The icons would be legally binding. If someone lied with the icons, it would be equivalent to lying on a privacy policy. The browser/community don’t try to prove anything; they just take it as is. The reason this can work is that if a company lies, they can get caught, and that could put them in serious trouble. The “judge”, then, is the government overseeing the perjurous company. Really, the two formats are equivalent that way (that is to say, claiming the icons wouldn’t work is equivalent to saying posted privacy policies wouldn’t work—and they do, for the most part).
Ben Chestnut
I’ve always been an advocate for “plain-english” (even slightly entertaining and enlightening) privacy policies and terms of use. A privacy policy that Warren Buffet or Wilford Brimley would write. :-) However, as our company has grown, we frequently run into people who took advantage of this by exploiting every tiny little loophole that we couldn’t fill in with legalese. Sigh.
So we’ve had to make lots of modifications to our privacy policy, pricing policy, refund policy, and terms of use over the years, which turned those pages into Frankenstein looking contracts. Add to that our ever changing features list, which sometimes bring up more privacy issues (not bad issues, just clarity issues), which then require more updates to the privacy policy. Also, we sometimes get new clients who ask us to sign their own data protection and privacy contracts. Mostly from financial institutions, or global organizations that have to adhere to different laws in different countries. We never sign those agreements. But we *do* take their language, and add them to our own agreements. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words, these privacy policies change. A lot.
So the one thing I’ve resorted to, and have always been really proud of, is that we’ve kept a *changelog* under our privacy policy. Where I can say, “On this date, we changed this section, to clarify blah blah blah.”
Actually, I’m kind of embarrassed to say this, but it looks like our web designers have lost that changelog. Oops. I’ll find that and replace asap!
(Ahem. Let’s just say I didn’t accidentally lose my changelog)
Have you considered this approach? The browser could notify a visitor to a website if something changed in the privacy policy. I would *love* it if my users saw this in their browser, instead of having to email all of them about a tiny change in language. So long as the icon/warning displayed by the browser isn’t too scary, you know.
newnomad
Is there a central forum/group where this idea is developed?
I also found this initiative http://wiki.igf-online.net/wiki/Main_Page
and would like to extend the idea into sales terms and conditions, so it could also be used for ecommerce.
v-pills
Çok güzelsin hayatım, ölüyorum sana. pecrankın 6 ya, benim için bi tanesin.
büyütücü
gelde ekleme..
büyütme
çok güzelsin canım, nasıl oluyorda bu kadar mükemmel siteler yapıyorsunuz anlamıyorum.
motif
suspented… thanks :)
hemoroid
weldone guys.
porno
Very Nice Text. Thank u
porno
dsadksaşlfdsşfdsf
araba oyunu
thanks admin thinking and position +1
Magazin
There are other options as well; like crowdsourcing tentative Privacy Icons for a website whose privacy policy does have icons yet (and deferring to the company’s as soon as they put them up).
iç giyim
privacy is most important
flans
admin thanks for it
bektaşilik
privacy is important for whole people
tanga
very useful things
dügün
The client should probably notify the user in some smart way that it hasn’t found the icons on the website which may mean (but doesn’t have to) that the privacy policy is not good for the user.
kadın
super trick good idea
iç çamaşır
thanks for this useful issue
porno
thanks.Great post.
celebrity games
I think your point on adding clarity to the goal is important. Content without a clear goal in mind is distracting.
ogame
3 columns, 2 Right sidebars, Orange, Yellow, Pink, Red, Black, White colors
porno
cok guzel bilgi verilmis tesekkur ederim
v-pills
ty good work and site
v pills
ty
vpills
thaks
pagerank
good work
porno sikiş kızlık bozma
thank you mr. admın
v-pills
what :A qualified lawyer chooses what icons to bind to their privacy policy, and so there can be substantially more icons to choose from allowing the creation of a rich privacy story.
v-pills
website which may mean (but doesn’t have to) that the privacy policy is not good for the user.
Zayıflama Lida Fx15 Ve Biber Hapı Zlfvbh
Justin, today, if you make money and you have a website related to that, you’ve got a privacy policy. It’s simply too dangerous (legally) not to. If you’re at all concerned about search engine ranking, you have a privacy policy. Pretty much every site has one and those that don’t would develop one (or copy from some template somewhere) the moment they started being penalized (in the browser) for not having one.
Pes 2011 Patch
I think your point on adding clarity to the goal is important. Content without a clear goal in mind is distracting.
sağlık moda
asdad as dadas
turk porno
very good..
Şarkı Sözü
The problem is that for everyday people, reading and understanding those necessarily custom privacy policies is time consuming and nigh impossible.
Askerlik Sorgulama
Askerlik sorgulama e thansk and you.
escort bayan
escort – escort bayan- bayan escort – escort siteleri – türk escortları – escort model – vip escort model
travesti
thnk u for this site
bayan escort
good job thank u
jigolo
yes good post
Selülit kremi
Afferim, sevdim sizleri. Tebrik ederim gençler:)
world healthy
thanks admin :)
aksaray
Good very nice =)
oyunlar
Very good.. :)