> It is not acceptable to have a privacy policy intended for ordinary people if it's not also intended to be understood by ordinary people.

I agree, but by extension this is also true for all laws and legal documents. The fact that world still works with this situation (the laws which people are supposed to abide by are not really understandable to those same people) doesn't mean we don't have a problem to solve here.

>The fact that world still works with this situation

Depends upon what you mean by works? We have clear favoritism, nepotism, racism, sexism, etc. in how the existing system works. It isn't complete anarchy, but by that standard the most kafka-esque regimes still work.

I think we have massive room for improvements in both laws and contracts.

When reading your argument, I can't help but think about a stat a Polish journalist computed. At that point, reading the law at the pace it came out would take about four (or was it six) hours per day. That's assuming you read law as fast as prose and don't need to read the preexisting acts.

>> These are documents created by lawyers, for lawyers.

> Except they bind normal consumers, not lawyers.

> This is the law's version of the old softare forum 'RTFM' dismissal when people asked technical questions.

Thanks for pointing this out.

> It is not acceptable to have a privacy policy intended for ordinary people if it's not also intended to be understood by ordinary people. If a normal consumer needs to consult a lawyer before they sign up for Facebook, something has gone horribly wrong.

Here's my secret hope that articles like this will force the opinion - and courts - to realize that these documents are worthless and shouldn't protect any company that abuses customer data from lawsuits.

Also for us Europeans I still look forward to seing consumer protection agencies here finally getting annoyed and starting to use their new GDPR claws.