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

141–150 of 255 posts

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#141

Post by imglorp »

anoncoward1234 wrote: post #98

Seems to me this is easily fixed. If a jury of peers cannot understand the legal contract during an arbitration, rule in favor of the signor of the contract and against the writer. You'll see that shit disappear with a quickness.

This is a great idea but I don't think it goes far enough.

It means that 12 lay people can eventually, after some coaching, study, and debate, understand a contract. Or one lawyer, presumably.

The problem remains though, that one lay person needs to understand it without study or coaching, and without taking days to do so. Most of us have probably clicked through hundreds or even thousands of EULAs and other crap without having days to understand each one. Every app, every shrinkwrap, your toaster, and even the bloody nav on your car with its OK button: there's just too much.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#142

Post by dhimes »

username223 wrote: post #111
dawnerd wrote: post #27

One thing I’d like to see outlawed is forced arbitration. Waiving someone’s right to a lawsuit is just wrong and only serves to benefit the company.

I was amused to read recently that, thanks to having an ancient Yahoo! mail account, I am now subject to binding arbitration when I have a disagreement with a Yahoo! spinoff called "Oath." Also, I cannot participate in a class action or jury trial. That should work out well for me the next time they leak all of their user data.

Yep I saw that too- and I still use them b/c of stuff I set up a decade ago. I'm just not sure it's in fact worth the trouble to change (they are Verizon now).

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#143

Post by leggomylibro »

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 use programming languages for tasks that do not require human judgement.

If using your product requires the detailed understanding of a standard EULA, my judgement is that I would not like to use your product without training. Think of all the details in those paragraphs that I might mess up!

But using these products does not require the detailed understanding of a standard EULA. It only requires you to click 'I Agree'. The EULA is not there to inform the user, it is there to ensure that your exploitation of them will not be punished when they find out.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#145

Post by kodablah »

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…

> Law in general has multiplied

It's no surprise reading the comments here and elsewhere these days. The media helps build a furor amongst people, and people believe there is no other choice but to use the heavy hand of the government to solve their issues. Many times it's done without alternatives attempted first with the proponents criticizing those against a law as against its intentions. We see it with the Patriot Act, GDPR, etc.

And as global internet laws are written more and more by governments of citizens who implicitly trust them a lot (often just guessing at what can solve the problem instead of empirical evidence based on timid baby steps), their tentacles spread to the point where only those with resources can abide. Things happen in waves and I can only hope we'll come around to not adding laws and regulations all the time.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#146

Post by InclinedPlane »

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…

Legalese is not what you think it is, it contains perhaps even more ambiguity than plain English in many cases. As often as not legalese circles around the matter rather than addressing it directly and clearly.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#147

Post by x0x0 »

Digit-Al wrote: post #134
throwawayjava wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 exp…

You can simultaneously believe that

* FB is doing their absolute best to make sure no "user" understands what they have agreed to

* writing the law in "plain english" is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of in my life. See the multi million dollar lawsuit this year about whether a missing Oxford comma changed wage rules for a class of truck drivers. Any attempt to write law in plain english introduces giant ambiguities [1].

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.htm...

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#148

Post by Digit-Al »

The thing nobody seems to be talking about is 'why do we need all these complex Terms & Conditions anyway?'

If I buy a fridge I don't need to read and agree to reams of T's and C's before I can use it. The same with a toaster or an oven or a washing machine. If I buy a knife I don't have to agree to indemnify the manufacturer if I kill someone with it. What's so special about software?

I'm starting to think that there should be an agreed set of national (or maybe even international) software indemnifacations covering anything that is agreed to be considered a sensible exclusion.

Any software use could then be covered by the relevant law with no need to read a new set of terms for everything.

Any company trying to add their own terms on top of these could then be considered with much caution or suspicion.

Hopefully they would be written better than this was, but I hope I have got my point across.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#150

Post by komali2 »

gizmo385 wrote: post #65
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.

More like, it would look like this:

1. You agree to allow us to share your email address with 3rd parties (have useful targeted advertisements? y/n)

2. You agree to allow us to parse your messages internally (enable auto-reply suggestions in messages? y/n)

Something like that.

I mean I think there would still be "hard-coded" T&C, "standing order" type things you agree to just by using the app at all. Like, not uploading goreporn or something.

Post reply on HN