When Snapchat鈥檚 new privacy fine print matters 鈥� and when it doesn't
When Snapchat updated its Terms of Use and Privacy Policy on Friday, many users assumed (incorrectly) that the company was asserting ownership over pictures and videos taken in the app. What does the confusion say about the way privacy policies are written?
When Snapchat updated its Terms of Use and Privacy Policy on Friday, many users assumed (incorrectly) that the company was asserting ownership over pictures and videos taken in the app. What does the confusion say about the way privacy policies are written?
Snapchat鈥檚 popularity rests on its ephemeral, in-the-moment approach to sharing: pictures and videos sent using the app can be viewed once (or twice, if you鈥檙e willing to pay) and then they鈥檙e gone forever.
But on Friday, Snapchat updated its privacy policy and terms of use with some language that suggested users鈥� pictures aren鈥檛 gone at all. Furthermore, news sites such as The Telegraph聽reported that Snapchat could now use users鈥� content in promotional materials, on its website, or anywhere else it pleased.
As Snapchatters began to get out their pitchforks, the company clarified in a statement on Sunday that users鈥� pictures and videos can鈥檛 be used in promotional materials 鈥� because they鈥檙e automatically deleted from Snapchat鈥檚 servers as soon as they鈥檝e been seen by the recipients.
鈥淭he important point,鈥� the company wrote, 鈥渋s that Snapchat is not鈥攁nd never has been鈥攕tockpiling your private Snaps or Chats. And because we continue to delete them from our servers as soon as they鈥檙e read, we could not鈥攁nd do not鈥攕hare them with advertisers or business partners.鈥�
Snapchat鈥檚 terms of service do, however, give the company a license to use public content such as pictures and videos that appear in the 鈥淟ive Stories鈥� section of the app. That license allows Snapchat to retransmit that content to additional users, or syndicate it down the road. But it doesn鈥檛 cover individual Snaps, meaning that person-to-person communications are still reasonably private.
The confusion over the privacy policy is at least partially the fault of overexcited journalism 鈥� but it might also point to a problem with legalese. Snapchat says it updated the privacy policy and terms of use 鈥渟o that they鈥檇 read the way people actually talk.鈥� Since hardly anyone read the original policy, and even fewer understood the legal terms it was written in, users took the change as a sign that Snapchat was asserting ownership over their pictures.
A 2006 study from the University of California, Berkeley found that only 1.4 percent of users read privacy policies 鈥渙ften and thoroughly鈥� 鈥� and that number has probably decreased in the intervening decade, since hardly anyone has time to read through the privacy policies for each of the apps and online services they use. So where does that leave us? Some companies, such as Snapchat, have tried to reword their privacy policies so that they鈥檙e understandable to users who don鈥檛 have a law degree. In 2012, Google (now Alphabet) consolidated its privacy policies for more than 60 products into a single document written in plain English.
But plenty of people still won鈥檛 read privacy policies even if they鈥檙e written in simple language. That鈥檚 why some privacy advocates have been pushing for 鈥渧isceral鈥� notice, which uses everyday signs and symbols to inform people about how a service is using their data. The camera shutter sound that smartphones make when they鈥檙e taking a picture is one example of this kind of notice 鈥� when we hear that noise, we know instinctively that data is being captured. Another might be a small face icon that a company adds to a website to alert users that they鈥檙e being tracked.