Comment by vaylian
4 days ago
> Instead, I offered to sign a modified declaration confirming data deletion. I had no interest in retaining anyone’s personal data, but I was not going to agree to silence about the disclosure process itself.
Why sign anything at all? The company was obviously not interested in cooperation, but in domination.
Getting them to agree to your terms pretty much nullifies their domination strategy, and in fact becomes legally binding on them.
It's clear that the intentions of the insurance company are selfish and they want to gain leverage over the reporter. Even if the reporter managed to add a clause about data deletion, the company could still make the reporter's life hell with the remaining clauses that were signed. This is not worth the risk.
He didn't add a clause, he replaced their entire declaration with a single clause of his choice. At least that is how I read it.
[flagged]
Because you are highjacking a thread. Wanna trash the site's design, you should open a top level thread instead.
> Wanna trash the site's design, you should open a top level thread instead.
Or better, don't[1]:
Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
3 replies →
Ah then I deserve it. I didn't notice from the app I was using that it wasn't all the way to the left
Your response didn’t have anything to do with the parent comment. And I’m on a phone (iOS) and had no issue reading it, for the record.
As well as contrast issues, could also be that there was a javascript error on their end (or they don't whitelist sites for JS by default). This is unfortunately one of those sites that renders a completely blank page unless you use reader mode, enable JS, or disable CSS.
If it was a random JS error, well, that reminds me of: https://www.kryogenix.org/code/browser/everyonehasjs.html