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

Terms of Service update

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 43 posts

Re: Terms of Service update

#21

Post by pekk »

criley2 wrote: post #18
fooqux wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;) But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twistin…

TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate". By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.

So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted.

Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?

Re: Terms of Service update

#22

Post by criley2 »

pekk wrote: post #21
criley2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate". By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.

So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted. Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?

Nice little question, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a lawyer yourself to buy the argument that pages of legalese is "plain english".

Re: Terms of Service update

#23

Post by grabeh »

kylec wrote: post #4

We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English summary for your convenience. Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?

It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them.

This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand.

As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though.

Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.

Re: Terms of Service update

#24

Post by pekk »

criley2 wrote: post #22
pekk wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted. Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?

Nice little question, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a lawyer yourself to buy the argument that pages of legalese is "plain english".

I think the problem is not legalese but the concept and scope of TOS (at least in US law)

Re: Terms of Service update

#25

Post by erenemre »

bry wrote: post #17

You can opt out of Shared Endorsements (mentioned in the new ToS) here: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en

If you don't have a Google+ account, this link forces you to create one. So I can't access these settings and I do not want a G+ account.

I'm unsure if they still can use my info on shared endorsements...

Re: Terms of Service update

#26

Post by jforman »

runako wrote: post #9
kylec wrote: post #4

We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English summary for your convenience. Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?

"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.

"the CPUs won't run it"

A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system.

The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.

Re: Terms of Service update

#27

Post by brisance »

Where is the option for Google to pay me if they choose to use my image or likeness in "Shared Endorsements"? I can't see why anyone who is even a minor celebrity/blogger whose livelihood depends on being in the public consciousness would want to enable this option.

The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".

Re: Terms of Service update

#28

Post by abstrakraft »

jforman wrote: post #26
runako wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.

"the CPUs won't run it" A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system. The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a differen…

This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case.

Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.

Re: Terms of Service update

#29

Post by dangero »

runako wrote: post #9
kylec wrote: post #4

We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English summary for your convenience. Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?

"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.

If they write a summary of the TOS for a user to read "instead" aren't they then legally bound to their summary?

Re: Terms of Service update

#30

Post by nl »

erenemre wrote: post #25
bry wrote: post #17

You can opt out of Shared Endorsements (mentioned in the new ToS) here: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en

If you don't have a Google+ account, this link forces you to create one. So I can't access these settings and I do not want a G+ account. I'm unsure if they still can use my info on shared endorsements...

Endorsements require an action on behalf of the user and therefor require Google+
Post reply on HN