Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 255 posts

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#61

Post by Letmesleep69 »

mooneater wrote: post #47

True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…

> It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand

Why does that not make sense? The law must cover everything from "dont kill certain species" to "don't commit this very specific type of fraud". Society is so advanced we need more laws. Of course Hamurabi's code was short because it didn't need to stop investment bankers committing fraud or voting laws to prevent racial bias or workers rights etc etc. Certainly there are improvements but you will never fit it all into one short book that a layperson could read.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#62

Post by vannevar »

DoofusOfDeath wrote: post #24

Disclaimer: I hate complex / abusive T&C's, and I'm keen to see them abolished. But... It seems to me like we as a public are blaming corporations for our failures. As adults we're responsible for what contracts we enter into, except in cases of coercion. 99% of us were stupid enough to state that we accepted terms that we didn't even read. Especially in cases where the product/service was purely optional (Netflix, C…

B2C contracts are not contracts between equals, and it is as foolish to apply the same standards to businesses and consumers as it is to treat pedestrians like automobiles for purposes of traffic law. The reality is that businesses can afford lawyers to spend time on a contract they will use with a million consumers, but the consumers cannot afford lawyers for the hundreds of B2C contracts they are presented with in the ordinary course of life.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#63

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ams6110 wrote: post #18
liberte82 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When exactly did it enter the public consciousness that drunk people are unable to give consent? I feel if this is true, there are many drunken hookups that become questionable. I'm in my mid-30s, and I feel this concept wasn't really a thing in my clubbing days.

Obama's 2011 Title IX "Dear Colleague" letter was a big part of it, establishing the lowest standard of proof in claims of sexual assault on college campuses. Schools responded by saying, effectively, that if you have sex with someone who's had a drink, and that person later regrets it, regardless of what they might have told you at the time, you have no defense. It's all ridiculous because universities have no compe…

> So anyone who was in college in the past 10 years will have had drummed into their heads that there is no consent possible by an intoxicated person.

Which creates all kinds of weird outcomes when both parties were equally drunk.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#64

Post by doomslice »

hshehehjdjdjd wrote: post #50
doomslice wrote: post #37

I've been thinking of writing my own Terms of Service for my cryptocurrency-related web startup -- with plain and clear language that the average person should be able to understand. Several people have advised me that this is a horrible idea and that I should enlist the help of a lawyer to write it instead. Some things I want to protect myself against: - People suing if they lose their private keys and are no longer…

> People suing if a bug in my software causes them to lose access to their account or coins Everything else sounds pretty reasonable, but this doesn’t. If you cause someone harm, you should expect that they will attempt to recover damages from you, regardless of what your T&C says. I cannot fathom why you think you should be protected against this eventuality. Buy insurance instead. Regarding your question, notwithst…

Fair enough. I guess this is why I should get a lawyer involved! I was assuming there was some distinction between accidental negligence and fraud as far as what could be protected against.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#65

Post by gizmo385 »

komali2 wrote: post #17

>Martin Garner, an analyst at technology consultancy CCS Insight, suggests companies walk readers through their policies step by step. That way they could opt out of selected provisions—limiting, for instance, third parties that can gain access to the data or restricting the kinds of information companies may stockpile. Merging t&c with settings... I like this idea a lot. Privacy controls with the agreement right the…

> That way they could opt out of selected provisions—limiting, for instance, third parties that can gain access to the data or restricting the kinds of information companies may stockpile.

Am I understanding this incorrectly or are you suggesting that we allow people to selectively opt-out of portions of a T&C document? Because good luck getting any legal department to buy into that whatsoever.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#66

Post by chrisBob »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #26
ben_w wrote: post #5

> If a typical user wouldn’t understand the [user agreement documents], the consent that companies rely on for their business activities would be legally invalid. I’ve not had time to read the GDPR, so this is news to me.* Especially surprising, because it’s exactly what I want the law to say, and I’m not used to that. I’d also like that principle to apply to the law as a whole, but I appreciate that’s as much wishfu…

If agreement for a contract requires easily understood English, what does that mean for my mortgage?

I don't typically have my lawyer review the TOS of each website I sign up for, but I did have him review my mortgage. Everyone picks a different place to draw the line between careful understanding (or hiring out a review from someone with careful understanding), and just blindly signing on the dotted line.

For me that is somewhere between purchasing a tractor and purchasing a house. The point is the no sane person includes Netflix in the "needs careful review" category, but I sincerely recommend that everyone take their home purchases seriously.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#67

Post by solomatov »

IMO, this is a question of consumer protection. It's ok to provide complicated contracts to corporations who can afford to hire lawyers, but it's not ok to do so with consumers. If we make a requirement that for consumer products, contract should be now longer than 1 page written in a language understandable by 10 year old, it will solve problem.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#68

Post by jstarfish »

gizmo385 wrote: post #57
mooneater wrote: post #47

True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…

> Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. While laws being written in common language sounds like a good idea, common language is open to lots of ambiguity and loopholes. Shouldn't our laws, in general, be written to be as precise and narrowly defined as possible?

> Shouldn't our laws, in general, be written to be as precise and narrowly defined as possible?

But in practice, it's the opposite. Law is full of ambiguities and loopholes. That's why we hire lawyers-- to find ones that work in our favor.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#69

Post by grabeh »

gizmo385 wrote: post #57
mooneater wrote: post #47

True of legalese in contracts, but also Law in general has multiplied like Gremlins. Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. It makes no sense that we should be subject to a volume of law that we could never even read, let alone understand. Musk is correct in insisting that laws should expire, and it should be easier to remove a law than add…

> Hammurabi's code of laws, was written in common language, and was brief enough every subject could understand them. While laws being written in common language sounds like a good idea, common language is open to lots of ambiguity and loopholes. Shouldn't our laws, in general, be written to be as precise and narrowly defined as possible?

Funnily enough even the tightest drafted legalese is actually often subject to a range of ambiguity and loopholes. I feel it can be a quality inherent in certain language regardless of whether it's plain English or legalese, particularly if there is money at stake in injecting a degree of ambiguity into the language (which is what I'm paid to do!).

Overall, if done correctly there should be no issue with expressing the parties' intentions in plain English rather than using dense legalese. It's something I strive to do every day in my job for sure.

Of course I agree with your general point about laws being drafted to be precise and narrow, it's just that using legalese doesn't always secure this objective. Sometimes it's just clear that the draftsperson was having a bad day.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#70

Post by doomslice »

solomatov wrote: post #51
doomslice wrote: post #37

I've been thinking of writing my own Terms of Service for my cryptocurrency-related web startup -- with plain and clear language that the average person should be able to understand. Several people have advised me that this is a horrible idea and that I should enlist the help of a lawyer to write it instead. Some things I want to protect myself against: - People suing if they lose their private keys and are no longer…

You should never write a contract yourself unless you are a lawyer. There's a case law which usually involved, and if aren't careful, you might have big problems.

But it seems like getting a lawyer involved is exactly what leads to these complicated Terms of Service. I would have to find a lawyer who agreed to significantly dumb down the Terms of Service, which I would suspect they would be opposed to -- I mean they are writing these things like this for a reason, right?
Post reply on HN