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

131–140 of 255 posts

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#131

Post by lainga »

torstenvl wrote: post #128
nordsieck wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The garbage part is not that there is a large volume of law, but that the law is made even larger implicitly through a system of historical precedent without being explicitly updated to reflect those changes. As an easy example, the commerce clause in the US constitution has come to mean something that no layman would ascribe to it.

As an easy example, the commerce clause in the US constitution has come to mean something that no layman would ascribe to it. Any support for that statement?

I think you would be hard-pressed to find a layman who, when presented with the commerce clause, replied that he had inferred the Dormant Clause [0] or Civil Rights Act [1] from it.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 - "... principally its power to regulate interstate commerce"

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#132

Post by Finnucane »

zmmille2 wrote: post #43

I see a lot of people talking about Terms of Service being too long. This is a problem for governments as well: How many laws do you think apply to you right now? How long do you think it would take for you to understand exactly what you can and cannot legally do? Do you think the average police officer, or even federal agent, has a full understanding of those laws? I hope that this is a problem that we can fix in th…

Sure, we're covered by many laws, but also many rights--the right to fair trial, the right to legal representation, the right to petition the government, and so on. If a law is poorly or vaguely written, it can be challenged on those grounds--many laws are tossed as unenforceable.

But when you click on a user agreement, there's no negotiation or possibility of redress. Take it or leave it, and they just cut you off if they feel like it. The comparison to laws is nonsense.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#133

Post by steve_g »

torstenvl wrote: post #128
nordsieck wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The garbage part is not that there is a large volume of law, but that the law is made even larger implicitly through a system of historical precedent without being explicitly updated to reflect those changes. As an easy example, the commerce clause in the US constitution has come to mean something that no layman would ascribe to it.

As an easy example, the commerce clause in the US constitution has come to mean something that no layman would ascribe to it. Any support for that statement?

Wheat grown by a farmer for his own consumption, not bought or sold, not carried across state lines, can be regulated by Congress as it affects "commerce ...among the several States."

See Wickard v. Filburn.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#134

Post by Digit-Al »

throwawayjava wrote: post #123
mieseratte wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think allowing programs to be specified in plain English is a good idea? The difference is that one is expected to consent and be beholden to something they could not reasonably understand without paying a large amount of money to a specialist. That I write my code in brainfuck is of no consequence to someone, unless that brainfuck is potentially going to incarcerate them.

> The difference is that one is expected to consent and be beholden to something they could not reasonably understand without paying a large amount of money to a specialist. I've found that this is generally less true than I imagine it to be. A lot of law is not actually so difficult to understand. Legalese is still English, and Google is great for figuring out the odd meanings of certain terms of art. Most of the ex…

I beg to differ.

> Waving a 2-inch-thick printed version of the social network’s user agreement, Senator Lindsey Graham quoted a line from the first page, then intoned: “I’m a lawyer, and I have no idea what that means.”

1) Two inch thick I've read some pretty long books in my time but that takes the cake. Most people these days don't even have enough attention span to read a complete internet article. How do you expect them to plough through hundreds of pages of legalese?

2) “I’m a lawyer, and I have no idea what that means.” Do I even need to say any more?

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#135

Post by cptskippy »

kbenson wrote: post #72
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…

Do you think allowing programs to be specified in plain English is a good idea? We have "legalese" for the same reason we have programming languages. Terms have specific, sometimes slightly different or more narrow meanings to promote better understanding of intent in languages meant to specify a set of rules. Specifying laws in "plain English" makes about as much sense to me as programming in English. You'll quickly…

> We have "legalese" for the same reason we have programming languages.

The intended purpose of "legalease" is to eliminate ambiguity and to clearly outline terms and conditions, however it's often used to introduce ambiguity and obfuscate the actual intent of terms and conditions or to redefine existing known and understood laws.

"Legalese" is a programming language that allows unsafe pointers. It's compiler not only permits but encourages the use of preprocessor directives to redefine variables and operators. Everything is globally scoped. Nothing is protected. Everything can be overridden. Multiple inheritance is expected.

Pretty much everything we advocate against in a programming language is permitted and encouraged in "legalese".

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#136

Post by Someone »

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?

As possible? Of course; nobody can be against that, but people will disagree about what’s possible.

I don’t think that means they should be more narrowly defined than they are now. That would mean a permanent weapons race between those finding and exploiting loopholes and the government, with those having access to the smartest lawyers (= the richest) staying ahead of the law.

For example, if “income” would be restricted to money received in exchange for services, companies would start paying in goods, for example by providing “free” housing, cars, etc. if the government includes such things in the law, companies could start paying out in gold, rather than money. When that gets included, companies could sell special (extremely cheap, no voting rights, must sell when leaving the company) shares to personnel, and pay most of the salary in dividends. That list is endless. Companies could start operating under the flag of Liberia, claim that they don’t pay you for work done, but that they charge you for the use of their machines, and that you sell them the stuff you made with them, etc.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#137

Post by moate »

kbenson wrote: post #72
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…

Do you think allowing programs to be specified in plain English is a good idea? We have "legalese" for the same reason we have programming languages. Terms have specific, sometimes slightly different or more narrow meanings to promote better understanding of intent in languages meant to specify a set of rules. Specifying laws in "plain English" makes about as much sense to me as programming in English. You'll quickly…

But code allows for Plain English: Comments. And nobody writes code without clear comments right? Right? Dear god please tell me you people aren't doing that!?

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#138

Post by mmcconnell1618 »

bobm_kite9 wrote: post #2

What I want is a standardized set of icons, which grant or deny specific things, that all websites can agree on, sort of like the ones available for software licensing, here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ It would be great if we could "standardize away" the whole T&C fiasco.

We have standardized nutritional labels in the United States and I would like to see a similar standard for terms and conditions. Icons could be part of it but also leave room for text and listing of what common data (email, ip, name, etc.) the service will collect and how they will use it.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#139

Post by dhimes »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #116
kbenson wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think allowing programs to be specified in plain English is a good idea? We have "legalese" for the same reason we have programming languages. Terms have specific, sometimes slightly different or more narrow meanings to promote better understanding of intent in languages meant to specify a set of rules. Specifying laws in "plain English" makes about as much sense to me as programming in English. You'll quickly…

I always found the language in RFCs better than legalese. Just the fact that they specify up front what the words must, shall, required, etc mean makes it less ambiguous. I feel lawyers use the ambiguity of language to bend the law in the way they need at the moment.

Exactly. If the precision of the language of law was working we wouldn't need to fight over it in court. Our new tax code hadn't been read by anyone who passed it- and, as an accountant explained to me long ago- we won't know exactly what it means until we get to court.

Even if a reset is unsustainably simple, it's time for one.

Post reply on HN