Add Spark Privacy Policy

[OTA-Bot]

🔎 Inspect this declaration suggestion

Bots should take care of checking the formatting and the validity of the declaration. As a human reviewer, you should check:

• The suggested document matches the scope of this instance: it targets a service in the language, jurisdiction, and industry that are part of those described for this instance.
• The service name Spark matches what you see on the web page, and it complies with the guidelines.
• The service ID Spark (i.e. the name of the file) is derived from the service name according to the guidelines.
• The terms type Privacy Policy is appropriate for this document: if you read out loud the terms type tryptich, you can say that “this document describes how the writer commits to handle the object for its audience”.
• Selectors are:
  • stable: as much as possible, the CSS selectors are meaningful and specific (e.g. .tos-content rather than .ab23 .cK_drop > div).
  • simple: the CSS selectors do not have unnecessary specificity (e.g. if there is an ID, do not add a class or a tag).
• Generated version is:
  • relevant: it is not just a series of links, for example.
  • readable: it is complete and not mangled.
  • clean: it does not contain navigation links, unnecessary images, or extra content.

---

If no document type seems appropriate for this document yet it is relevant to track in this instance, please check if there is already an open discussion about such a type and reference your case there, or open a new discussion if not.

Thanks to your work and attention, Open Terms Archive will ensure that high quality data is available for all reusers, enabling them to do their part in shifting the balance of power towards end users and regulators instead of spending time collecting and cleaning documents 💪

---

This suggestion has been created through the undefined, which enables graphical declaration of documents. You can load it on your local instance if you have one set up.

[Cli4d]

Thank you for making this contribution. I have reviewed it and it checks out for me. I have gone ahead and resolved some merge conflicts and lining problems. I will proceed to merge this pull request

@OpenTermsArchive/core I saw some small rendering issues in the verified version of the terms. But is is only on the contribution tool. Just a minor observation

[MattiSG]

Yes, this is a case of OpenTermsArchive/contribution-tool#143