"If we decide to change our Privacy Policy, we will post those changes to this privacy statement, the homepage, and other places we deem appropriate so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If however, we are going to use users' personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time of collection we will notify users by posting a notice on our web site for 30 days."
It appears they've done none of this; then again it amounts to accomplishing nothing other than a PR show, so not much has been lost.
Their policy doesn't seem to have considered in its design, "what if we go bankrupt fire everyone and someone else buys us".
I wonder how far back the records go. Could they give me a copy of my Dad's purchase receipt from 1980 for our TRS-80 model III? For 16K of 4116 dram for about $300 or whatever it was back in '81 or '82? On the other hand, given the decline of the company in recent years, if they only have records going back 5 years I probably don't even show up in them.
In the case of Radio Shack, you typically handed over information as part of a purchase, so money definitely changed hands. For startups following the model of "we'll give the product away for free and make it up in volume" it's less clear, but giving info in exchange for access to a service seems like it could be consideration.
Radio Shack made many legally binding contracts. They promised that they would pay back their creditors. The promised suppliers sales volume. Radio Shack is in bankruptcy and all those contracts are (or have been) torn up. It's not just a privacy contract that has been torn up.
And for all the wailing and nashing of teeth I can go down to Acxiom and get far more data about people than radio shack has.
Radio Shack still existed in some form at the time of the sale. The assets which were sold were transferred from Radio Shack to the buyer. If Radio Shack had a binding contract that disallowed such a sale then the sale shouldn't be allowed.
Speculation. The quoted terms were just about what Radio Shack would do; were there any about not selling? Even so, the seller was likely a liquidator, not Radio Shack?
