<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;delta&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 07:15:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>California Looking To Protect You From The Scourge Of Airlines Not Mentioning Privacy Policies You Don't Read</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/08100221305/california-looking-to-protect-you-scourge-airlines-not-mentioning-privacy-policies-you-dont-read.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/08100221305/california-looking-to-protect-you-scourge-airlines-not-mentioning-privacy-policies-you-dont-read.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in October, we wrote about how California Attorney General Kamala Harris was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121012/13512420693/california-attorney-general-uses-twitter-to-threaten-united-airlines-with-possible-legal-action.shtml">threatening</a> United Airlines over Twitter, because their mobile app apparently didn't prominently display the app's privacy policy.  California has a <a href="http://oag.ca.gov/privacy/COPPA" target="_blank">silly law</a> that requires privacy policies.  Now, Harris has actually <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/12/california-sues-delta-for-failing-to-put-privacy-policy-on-mobile-app/" target="_blank">sued Delta airlines over the same thing</a>.  Of all the illegal things that Harris could be going after, is focusing on mobile apps that don't prominently display their privacy policy <i>really</i> the best use of her time and my taxpayer dollars?
<br /><br />
The whole infatuation with privacy policies is, frankly, stupid.  They do nothing to actually increase your privacy.  Since the only thing they do is hold you to your own rules, they actually encourage companies to take your privacy <i>less</i> seriously, since to avoid possible liability, they're likely to craft privacy policies that aren't as strict.  Furthermore, <b>no one</b> reads those things.  Forcing companies to display a broadly written policy designed to limit their liability, which no one cares about and no one will read... just seems like a complete waste.
<br /><br />
Of course, as we've <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/18033710718.shtml">discussed before</a>, this is exactly what state Attorneys General do all the time.  They pick some random issue they can grandstand about, and then pick on companies over those issues, putting all sorts of public pressure on them, solely for the purpose of generating headlines about how they're "protecting consumers" or some other bogus claim... and then they use those headlines for when they run for higher office.  The Attorney General slot is quite frequently seen as a stepping stone to becoming governor, and so many AGs abuse the position with these kinds of legal threats and lawsuits almost entirely to be used as campaign fodder.  It's sad and pathetic and does little to actually protect the public.
<br /><br />
In Harris' <a href="http://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-kamala-d-harris-files-suit-against-delta-airlines-failure" target="_blank">press release</a> about the lawsuit, she makes this silly claim: "Losing your personal privacy should not be the cost of using mobile apps, but all too often it is."  But that's ridiculous.  Just because Delta doesn't link to its privacy policy from the app doesn't mean that users lose their personal privacy.
<br /><br />
The only encouraging thing here is that looking through the comments on the Ars Technica article linked above, they seem almost universally to be against Harris for filing such a silly and pointless lawsuit.  Maybe, one day, we can hope that such pointless grandstanding is seen for what it really is: a cynical ploy to make an Attorney General look good in the press, rather than any legitimate legal issue.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/08100221305/california-looking-to-protect-you-scourge-airlines-not-mentioning-privacy-policies-you-dont-read.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/08100221305/california-looking-to-protect-you-scourge-airlines-not-mentioning-privacy-policies-you-dont-read.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121207/08100221305/california-looking-to-protect-you-scourge-airlines-not-mentioning-privacy-policies-you-dont-read.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-feel-so-much-safer</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121207/08100221305</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2012 10:33:06 PDT</pubDate>
<title>TSA Declares Themselves Fashion &#038; Funny Police</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While we were just discussing an accusation against the TSA for <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120813/08275320006/tsa-racial-profiling-may-hide-larger-constitutional-problem.shtml">racial profiling</a> (GASP!), did you know that they were also the official state-sponsored fashion and humor police? I mean, who couldn&#39;t see these guys adjudicating your local fashion show?
<center>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobileedgelaptopbags/4119819621/" title="TSA Screener with Checkpoint Friendly Laptop Case by Mobile Edge Laptop Cases, on Flickr"><img a="" src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2689/4119819621_8d5246c47c.jpg" width="300" /></a></center>
<center>
<p>
<span style="font-size: 10px">TSA uniforms: like Michael Jackson, but creepier<br />
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/mobileedgelaptopbags/4119819621/">Image Source</a>. CC BY-SA 2.0</span></p>
</center>
<p>
Reader <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=pixelpusher220">pixelpusher220</a> writes in about the tale of how <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/08/21/delta-refuses-boarding-to-poop.html">one man's shirt got him booted off of a Delta airplane</a> <i>after</i> passing through TSA security, as recounted by Cory Doctrow.
<blockquote>
<i>Back in 2007, I <a href="http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow">designed a shirt</a> for Woot! that featured a screaming eagle clutching an unlaced shoe and a crushed water bottle, surrounded by the motto MOISTURE BOMBS ZOMG TERRORISTS ZOMG GONNA KILL US ALL ZOMG ZOMG ALERT LEVEL BLOODRED RUN RUN TAKE OFF YOUR SHOES. Among the lucky owners of this garment is Arijit <a href="http://boingboing.net/2012/07/28/poop-strong-young-cancer-pati.html">"Poop Strong"</a> Guha, who proudly wore it this week as he headed for a Delta flight from Buffalo-Niagara International Airport to his home in Phoenix. </i>
<p>
<i>But it was not to be. First, the <s>TSA</s> <b>Delta agents</b> questioned him closely about the shirt, and made him agree to change it, submit to a secondary screening and board last. He complied with these rules, but then he was pulled aside by multiple Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority cops, more TSA, and a Delta official and searched again.</i>
</p></blockquote>
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/VPRsr"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/VPRsr.jpg" width="500" /></a></center>
<center>
<br />
<span style="font-size: 10px">Apparently the new terror plot is to make you laugh so hard your face explodes</span></center>
</p><p>
<br />
It&#39;s worth noting that these shirts were designed by Cory Doctrow and <a href="http://shirt.woot.com/offers/threat-level-doctorow)">sold as part of a charitable program</a>.<br />
<br />
Now, I&#39;ll restate it again, Arijit had already gone through the TSA screening when he and his wife were then approached by Delta employees at the gate who informed him that he had committed the crime of making other passengers "uncomfortable". When Arijit informed the Delta employees that he was wearing the shirt specifically to mock the security theater we call an airport these days, he was put through another round of screening at the gate by several TSA and local agents and then told that he would be allowed to board. The Delta pilot, catching wind of this, requested Arijit <i>not</i> be allowed to board, because laughter would not be tolerated on his enormous hunk of flying metal. Oh, and they also refused to allow his wife to board the plane too. No reason was apparently given for this, but I&#39;m guessing there may have been some plaid mixing with pin-stripes in her outfit, and the pilot found it to be lacking in fabulousness.<br />
<br />
Or maybe there was another reason. According to Arijit, <a href="http://arijitvsdelta.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/on-saturday-august-18-2012-delta.html" target="_blank">the officer wanted to interrogate him further</a>, saying that Arijit had given a "stupid answer" and "looked foreign":
<blockquote>
<i>&ldquo;Certainly he wasn&rsquo;t implying that dark-skinned people are not real Americans and that white people are the only true Americans,&rdquo; Arijit writes in part of his snark-filled synopsis.</i><i> &ldquo;Fortunately, Mark&rsquo;s request was denied. Apparently, someone at NFTA recognized this bigoted meathead for the bigoted meathead he was and that nationality is simply a concept that exists solely on paper and cannot be discerned from just looking at someone.&rdquo;</i></blockquote>
And yet he still wasn&#39;t allowed on the plane. Was it because of his t-shirt? Was it because the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/11022720048/this-t-shirt-has-been-seized.shtml">motherfucking eagle</a> on it caused concern amongst passengers? Or, as has been previously accused, was it because too many TSA agents find brown-skinned people suspicious and alarming?</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120828/16245520196/tsa-declares-themselves-fashion-funny-police.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>bombs-zomg</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120828/16245520196</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Nov 2010 20:33:36 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Delta Fined For Lying To Passengers About How Much They Could Get Reimbursed For Lost Luggage</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/04261511684/delta-fined-for-lying-to-passengers-about-how-much-they-could-get-reimbursed-for-lost-luggage.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/04261511684/delta-fined-for-lying-to-passengers-about-how-much-they-could-get-reimbursed-for-lost-luggage.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Consumerist alerts us to the news that the Department of Transportation has <a href="http://consumerist.com/2010/11/delta-fined-100000-for-lying-to-passengers-about-lost-luggage-liability.html" target="_blank">fined Delta $100,000 for telling passengers that its liability on lost luggage</a> was capped at very low rates -- well below what the DOT specifically requires.  The law says that airlines cannot limit liability to anything lower than $3,300 per passenger.  So what did Delta do?  It gave passengers notices saying that liability was limited to $125.  Turns out, that's a no-no.  Of course, I'd rather that the airline spend the money on <b>not</b> losing luggage, but perhaps that's just wishful thinking...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/04261511684/delta-fined-for-lying-to-passengers-about-how-much-they-could-get-reimbursed-for-lost-luggage.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/04261511684/delta-fined-for-lying-to-passengers-about-how-much-they-could-get-reimbursed-for-lost-luggage.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101102/04261511684/delta-fined-for-lying-to-passengers-about-how-much-they-could-get-reimbursed-for-lost-luggage.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-following-the-law</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101102/04261511684</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>