Reject Convenience Forum

I was just reviewing the privacy policy of a tool a user at work requested access to.
I don't want to talk about this tool specifically since it's rather niche and just used for some quality of life for people working on SEO. Don't get me started, I don't eve nuse Google myself, but since this was a request from that team at work... what can I do. So for your reference: https://www.conductor.com/legal/privacy-policy/ (I also made sure to keep proof)

I just thought this was a good place to start a conversation about the worst kind of practices and "red-flag" standards that at a glance can tell you that a company really doesn't care about your privacy.
In this case under "3. INFORMATION WE COLLECT ABOUT YOU" I was greeted with a screenshot of a table for the types of data they collect and how they use it. By it's formatting this seems to be about 3 document pages filled with block text that is completely not searchable and they even referenced other policies that are linked within the text they screenshotted, but obviously the link address is not visible and they did not place the same link on the image or paste a reference below that image.

This felt like a middlefinger to users in a similar way as the privacy policy for "DeleteMe" that was only visible with tracker blockers disabled.

Yikes, I can certainly imagine why you see it the way you do. I've never seen a privacy policy upload screenshots of the collected information data before, I can imagine it does wonders deterring people who don't want to read the policy cover-to-cover because of impatience or simply lack of time.

I take it the team that use this tool aren't that anxious to look for alternatives? Or would it be possible for them to change to different SEO-related software once concerns about the privacy policy are raised?

December_W_Wolf wrote: Wed Mar 05, 2025 11:04 am I take it the team that use this tool aren't that anxious to look for alternatives? Or would it be possible for them to change to different SEO-related software once concerns about the privacy policy are raised?

That is not really an issue, they can work without this tool and have been doing so for a long time. It's just one of these cases of regular users who just request access whenever they see something that might be interesting (and usually quickly forget about it). I am pretty sure they don't think about the circumstances or the possible consequences of using these things. For them it's just an inconvenience that there is that annoying guy in the way. And why couldn't we just give them admin access and all permissions, at home they can use it without any issues... And I just had to issue a security warning in an all-hands this week, because of... reasons.