What does your site define as private information? If the data got sent to you, it's no longer "private," at least in one sense of the word.
Is "selling" information considering "sharing"?
Questions like these are why the legalese of privacy policies needs to be complicated - it's simply ambiguous otherwise.
It means exactly what people would expect it to mean. In such cases of plain and simple language in a contract, courts go with that.
> What does your site define as private information?
If a site defines what is private information that is different from a common sense understanding, the site is being dishonest and tricky.
> If the data got sent to you, it's no longer "private," at least in one sense of the word.
That is an absurd and disingenuous interpretation that no reasonable person would ever expect to mean to be the definition of private.
> Is "selling" information considering "sharing"?
Yes, selling information is sharing it. Obviously. As any court would rule.
> Questions like these are why the legalese of privacy policies needs to be complicated - it's simply ambiguous otherwise.
Complicated contracts are always bullshit 10,000% of the time, designed to cheat and trick in all of the cases, without any exception ever.
The most simple language possible is needed. Complex wording hides a multitude of sins.
What does your site define as private information? If the data got sent to you, it's no longer "private," at least in one sense of the word.
Is "selling" information considering "sharing"?
Questions like these are why the legalese of privacy policies needs to be complicated - it's simply ambiguous otherwise.