Description
- Name: “Fees may be charged if you request an archive of your data”
- Rating:
- Weight: 60
- Topicc: Transparency (or, alternatively, User Choice)
- Descrption: When requesting an archive of your data collected by the service, you may need to pay a fee for the request, effectively “paywalling” access to your own data.
Reasoning
I currently can not remember a specific service where this could apply. Nevertheless, Mhile reviewing I have read through more than a handful of services’ policies that state this, or something similar. I have a good faith belief that there’s enough services to justify this new Case.
Example:
DeviantArt Privacy Policy
Source: Terms of Service; Didn't Read - Phoenix (up to date as of writing). It’s highlighted in the document for you to find.
[…] 7.2. We may ask you for additional information to confirm your identity and for security purposes, before disclosing the requested data to you. We reserve the right to charge a fee where permitted by law, for instance if your request is manifestly unfounded or excessive.
How Is This Different From Other Cases?
But we already have Case 141!
The wording for that case is too vague for our users’ sake; I’m not even too happy with how it is worded, either.
REMEMBER: We should inform users as clearly as we can (unless our internal functioning may be seriously affected, of course). Any Case with a vague title/description should be the exception, not the rule.
Users generally use ToS;DR to get informed about how a service respects their rights, and privacy. Vague titles, in my opinion, kind of defeat the purpose. This Case is more concise and communicates privacy concerns to the user more clearly, in my opinion.
What are your thoughts? The wording is not final and I’d like to see other people’s thoughts on the matter, and whether this is a sufficiently robust.