Why #quantifiedself practitioners should protect themselves with disclaimers?

After a small discussion under another thread on this forum, I decided to elaborate more on why I think we should protect ourselves with disclaimers when making our quantified self data and studies public:


Perhaps, I am being paranoid, but would like to hear your honest opinion on this.

Ever thought of consulting a lawyer?

That would cost money. I prefer going web 2.0 way and crowd source it :slight_smile:

I thought maybe you don’t need such disclaimer and you’re protected anyway. Which is why you should consult a lawyer’s opinion.

Legal disclaimers often tend to work in a way that laypeople don’t quite understand. There are issues where a disclaimer protects yourself. So don’t take this as legal advice :wink:

Disclaimer: “Nothing in this blog is intented to be an insult” Article “Mr X is a big asshole.”
In many jurisdictions that disclaimer won’t help you.

I would also think that the blog articles that analyse the data are much more vulnerable to attack than the data itself.

Christian, I agree! That’s why I would like to see disclaimer that protects not only data but also self-tracker’s published conclusions and reports that are based on that data.