Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I think you're nit picking and not focusing on the point. Regardless of the length (the lady either knew or didn't know how long the thing was) she didn't have it nor did she provide it to the gentleman to read. The office was still asking him to lie by requiring him to state he received and read something he obviously didn't receive nor read.


I'm inclined to believe this is a outlier to what normally happens and we're getting outraged over a mistake.

Every time I've visited my hospital for something, the privacy policy was printed on a small brochure and handed to me along with the signature form.


Same. I've been to multiple doctors, and each time, the "privacy policy" (either a HIPAA form or something similar) was included on the paper I was signing.

That's not to say Stallman's experience did not happen, but it is certainly not the norm.


That small brochure was only a subset of their privacy policy. The actual policy could not possible fit onto a brochure and as the OP said the form he was signing had a summary of the policy which is similar to your brochure.


Agreed, the story doesn't make sense and seems false.


Given that the two of you are talking of this 3000-page policy as if it's real, it's definitely on-topic to reveal that it isn't. Condoning hyperbole is never good, but it is ironic to do so in the course of condemning unnecessary beaurocracy.

If you want to fix things, seek the truth before making decisions on obvious falsities.


Whats truth is that he was asked to sign on a document that said he agreed to clauses, he never read. And could be denied treatment for not lying.

Whether those clauses are 3000 pages long or 3 pages long isn't much of a concern here.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: