Now that San Francisco has banished that evil scourge that is electric scooters —temporarily, anyway — there’s time to focus on what we really want the program to be about.

Most of the hand-wringing — and this is a city that loves hand-wringing — has understandably focused on keeping sidewalks clear of carelessly abandoned scooters, ensuring that whizzing riders don’t slam into people and encouraging users to wear helmets.

But there’s a less-visible component of the scooter program that also deserves scrutiny: users’ privacy. Chances are when you needed to get to your next meeting, saw an available scooter and downloaded that company’s app on a whim, you didn’t have time to pore over its “War and Peace”-length terms of service and privacy policy.

So I did it for you.

I haven’t yet felt the siren call of the scooters and haven’t downloaded their apps. (Loyal readers know I’m a Muni fan, and I also BART and walk a lot. And don’t tell anybody, but I also have a car!)

But all of the terms of service and privacy policies are available on the companies’ websites, and they’re not exactly reassuring. The companies track your location and reserve the right to partner with third-party advertisers, for example. And they all collect a lot of data about you.

Spin states that all user content uploaded through the service “in any media or technology now existing or developed in the future” can be used for advertising, marketing and promotion. It comes with a “royalty-free license throughout the universe” which I think means they’re making all the money, not you — even if the advertising with your name and image takes place on Mars.

Spin says it cannot ensure the security of any information, including billing and payment information, though it will take “reasonable” safeguards. “This is not a guarantee that such information will not be accessed,” its policy reads.

Lime requires that you agree to receive automated calls and text messages even if you cancel your account. You can opt out of the texts, which will get you another text confirming that choice. You can opt out of receiving automated phone calls by calling or emailing, but it’ll take 30 days to process that request. Even if you opt out of all of the above, “We reserve the right to make non-automated calls/texts to you.”

Lime and Bird, which seem to have pretty much the same policies, even say they can “collect personal information from credit reporting agencies to, for example, determine your creditworthiness, credit score and credit usage.” For a $1 scooter ride? Really?

There’s a lot more in there, but we have space constraints in this business, unlike — apparently — the lawyers who write these things.

Supervisor Aaron Peskin is highly dubious about these scooter companies and how they really intend to make money. After all, they charge just $1 per ride and 15 cents per minute, which is cheaper than pretty much every other thing in this exorbitant city.

“You think you’re getting on a scooter for a buck,” Peskin said. “They think they are mining your personal data and selling it. They’re giving you a cheap ride because they’re taking you on a long ride down a short pier.

“They’ve all denied to me that they are selling the data, but if you look at the fine print, you see they can sell everything,” he continued. “Of course, they haven’t sold it yet. They’ve just entered the marketplace.”

All three companies are adamant that they aren’t selling data and won’t ever sell it.

Bird spokesman Kenneth Baer said, “Bird takes privacy seriously and has strong policies and procedures in place to carefully protect the information of riders and all those in our community.”

Lime spokesman Joe Arellano said, “Lime takes user privacy seriously and does not sell data to third parties. ... We are sensitive to the concerns being raised across the country, and we review our data policy frequently to ensure it meets the highest standards set forth in the law.”

Spin’s co-founder and president, Euwyn Poon, said in a statement, “Our users can ride Spin scooters with the comfort of knowing that we do not sell their data to third parties or transfer data offshore to make a quick buck. There’s more than enough ridership to build a profitable system without compromising the privacy of our users.”

Now that City Hall has paused the scooter program and given itself until the end of this month to select which companies will be issued permits, there’s some time to consider privacy concerns.

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency has said in its permit application that companies’ privacy policies must “safeguard customers’ personal, financial and travel information.”

Sure, scooter companies certainly aren’t the only ones with terms of service and privacy policies like these. We’re all agreeing to pages of legalese we never read all the time, and using companies’ services and products we don’t fully understand. (It turns out Facebook doesn’t exist solely for users to trade cute baby photos and tell everybody what they ate for lunch! Who knew?)

To that end, Peskin is putting a charter amendment on the November ballot that would create a “privacy first” policy. It would require that companies that the city contracts with or issues permits to be much clearer about what data they’re collecting and how they’re using it.

“It would be forever ensconced into our constitution a policy that San Francisco shall protect all of its residents from misuse of their personal information,” Peskin explained.

Better late than never.

Big win: A lot of city government isn’t working very well. So when one department is performing at the top of its game, it’s newsworthy.

The San Francisco Public Library has won the Library Journal’s Library of the Year, meaning it’s been deemed the best library system in all of North America.

For libraries, it’s like winning the NBA Championship or an Academy Award for best picture. In other words, it’s a big deal.

“Oh, my goodness, it doesn’t get any bigger than this,” said Michael Lambert, acting city librarian after the recent retirement of Luis Herrera. A permanent replacement is expected by the end of the year. “We’re just elated.”

The library’s submission makes it easy to understand why it won the prestigious award. “At a time when our nation is fragmented and divided, struggling with issues of race, equity and displacement, the public library has become a beacon of democracy,” the submission begins.

Every library in San Francisco is open every day, whether in a wealthy neighborhood or poor one. They display signs and banners reading, “All Are Welcome.”

The library system offers workshops on becoming a citizen, designed a program to help parents and teachers talk to kids about race, has hosted drag-queen story times, chose a nonfiction tome about the Black Panther Party for its citywide book club, and employs social workers to help homeless and mentally ill library patrons.

The prize comes with $10,000, which will be added to the library’s regular budget.

Congratulations!

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Tuesdays. Email: hknight@sfchronicle.com Twitter: @hknightsf