I recently received an email[0] from a UK entity with an enormous wall of text talking about processing of personal information, my rights and how there is a “Contact Card” of my details on their website.
But with a little bit of reading, one could ultimately summarise the enormous wall of text simply as: “We’ve added your email address to a marketing list, click here to opt out.”
The huge wall of text email was designed to confuse and obfuscate as much as possible with them still being able to claim they weren’t breaking protection of personal information laws.
If you ask someone if they killed your dog and they respond with a wall of text, then you’re immediately suspicious. You don’t even have to read it all.
The same is true of privacy policies. I’ve seen some companies have very short policies I could read in less than 30s, those companies are not suspicious.
Companies won't be talking about killing your dog though, so if you conflate this onto things lawyers may have required that suspicion may be completely un-based pigeonholing efforts.
Long policies can be needed depending on the litigiousness of the working environment. I used to work in an industry where that was beyond common, and it was required to be defensible in court. Accounting for factors that aren't commonly known like biases of judges towards individuals vs companies.
But with a little bit of reading, one could ultimately summarise the enormous wall of text simply as: “We’ve added your email address to a marketing list, click here to opt out.”
The huge wall of text email was designed to confuse and obfuscate as much as possible with them still being able to claim they weren’t breaking protection of personal information laws.
[0]: https://imgur.com/a/aN4wiVp