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

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: Terms of Service update

#31

Post by runako »

dangero wrote: post #29
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.

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

No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/

Re: Terms of Service update

#32

Post by runako »

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…

If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes.

The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period.

Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.

Re: Terms of Service update

#33

Post by humbledrone »

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?

Here is the new (November 11) TOS. Reads like plain English to me.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/

Re: Terms of Service update

#34

Post by aviraldg »

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?

They differ in specificity.

Re: Terms of Service update

#35

Post by gcb0 »

lawn wrote: post #14
codezero wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is immediately available under the same text in the actual TOS: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en From: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/ It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid in my opinion.

Ah I didn't realize this was only for google+? Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?

I hope not as I still managed to escape all the pre-selected checkboxes to tie my account with g+

Re: Terms of Service update

#36

Post by dangero »

runako wrote: post #31
dangero wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/

Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?

Re: Terms of Service update

#37

Post by runako »

dangero wrote: post #36
runako wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/

Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?

Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here.

Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it.

Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.

Re: Terms of Service update

#38

Post by codezero »

gcb0 wrote: post #35
lawn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I didn't realize this was only for google+? Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?

I hope not as I still managed to escape all the pre-selected checkboxes to tie my account with g+

Godspeed gcb0, Godspeed!

Re: Terms of Service update

#39

Post by hanru »

lawn wrote: post #14
codezero wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link is immediately available under the same text in the actual TOS: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en From: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/ It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid in my opinion.

Ah I didn't realize this was only for google+? Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?

When I clicked the "endorsement" link, I was redirected to a "Join Google+" page. So I guess it's only applicable to Google+ (now).

Re: Terms of Service update

#40

Post by dangero »

runako wrote: post #37
dangero wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?

Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here. Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "po…

"Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs."

I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning.

I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.

Post reply on HN