Live data from Hacker News

The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

bloomberg.com

101–110 of 255 posts

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#101
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…

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#102
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…

> 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.

> That I write my code in brainfuck is of no consequence to someone, unless that brainfuck is potentially going to incarcerate them.

If you write software to control medical equipment in Brainfuck, it's potentially of consequence to a great many people. Same for autonomous driving routines.

Trying to make things clearer is a good cause. Expecting that everything can be made clear enough for the average person is a fool's errand.

Do we expect the circuit layouts of CPUs to be understandable by everyone? Because we are surely affected by those, in very many aspects of our lives.

Do we expect the full engineering and aeronautics behind an airplane to be understood by everyone? Everyone who flies puts their lives on the line based on those principles and the engineers getting it right.

Do we all expect to understand the numerous ways in which our bodies can get hurt, or interact with chemicals, or develop diseases? We trust doctors to figure out the complications there.

In each case, we've trusted domain experts to sort through the very complex topic and distill the knowledge into a useful form for us. In each case, we also generally know a core amount of the topic to help us navigate the everyday portions. CPUs work by providing a very low level core set of instructions that can be followed. Airplanes work through thrust, airflow and lift. Our bodies deteriorate over time, and if we put bad stuff in, they don't do as well, and some common diseases are known (cold, flu, etc).

The law is no different. There's a core set of things people are aware of. As things become more specific, or a problem happens, we call in domain experts to help.

Expecting everyone to be able to read all of the legal code will never happen, nor should it happen. It's expecting too much out of the average person, and would also require the law be dumbed down in ways that were detrimental to it's interpretation.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#103
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that legal terminology doesn't always match conventional descriptions of what's happening. Copyright is actually a perfect example of this. In order to send my photo over the Internet to other people who want to view it, you need much more than the legal right to display my picture. Sending a picture over the Internet involves copying, distributing, and sublicensing the image countless numbers of times…

> When you upload pictures, you have to give us the right to make as many copies of the pictures as we want, modify them however we'd like, and send those copies to whoever we want anywhere in the world. But isn't it precisely what the legalese means? I mean, unless otherwise restrict by some law other than the copyright laws, Imgur can use those images for anything. The statement does not limits the use to "reasonab…

It's precisely what the legalese means, and carries connotations which are absolutely nothing like what Imgur intends. They claim unlimited rights not because they don't want to be bothered to restrict them, but because the structure of the Internet makes it impossible to write a simple description of when copies will be made.

They could try going into detail:

> We can send copies of your image to anyone who, following standard Internet routing protocols, says that someone has requested to see the image and promises to forward the copy onwards to the original requester. Anyone we send the image to can also create copies themselves following this rule, and can temporarily store the copies as needed to make further copies.

But then neither the average Joe nor lawyers are going to be able to understand it.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#104
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Access to Facebook, Spotify, or Netflix is not a human right. These are private services offered by private companies who are free to offer those services on any terms they choose. It’s fine and completely understandable that you may not have time or cannot understand the agreements under which they may choose to offer you access. Your remedy for that is to not use the services in question. Your remedy isn’t to lie t…

Bold words. Question: Off the top of your head, for what period of time may you make a claim or cause of action arising out of or related to use of Hacker News or its terms of use? I'm just curious whether you've read and understood the terms of use for the site you're making these bold claims on.

Actually I have read them, back when I agreed to them many years ago. I don’t recall the specific detail you are asking off the top of my head, nor would that be a reasonable expectation of anyone. However, since I read and agreed to the terms and conditions, I know that a) such a document exists; b) that I can refer to it at anytime to answer such questions if I have them; and c) that I did not lie to Hacker News when I registered.

Can you make the same claim?

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#105
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

I agree. Wittgenstein had much to say that is relavent here, although he is referenced far more than he is read (unfortunately).

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#106

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 was simple, but did little to deal with edge cases.

One of the reasons that the body of law has grown as large as it has is because of said edge cases.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the elevator pitch approach. If you can't explain your T&S in as many words as it takes to explain your product, one or the other needs to be revised.

It sounds good in theory, but in practice there're aspect which prevents it from being applicable. See here: https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=16886176&goto=threads%...

Yes, you have a valid point.

The one I was more trying to make is that a product should not be simply marketed as "a platform for sharing pictures with your friends" if it is actually "a platform for sharing pictures with your friends in exchange for your participation in unspecified and ethically questionable social experiments."

The T&S can stay the same for all I care, I just think companies shouldn't be able to hide behind them when they dramatically oversimplify the nature of the product in the process of selling or promoting it.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#108

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.

Would that hold up in court? An icon?

Like many things, it depends. As long as one can demonstrate that the icon in question has a clear meaning to a "reasonable person" or "typical user", then use of the icon would likely hold up in court.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#109

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.

Even if EULAs were easily understood, they are still ultimatums: you either take it or leave it with no room for negotiation or repercussions for demanding far more than the product could reasonably ever be worth. There is no motivation to ever write these in good faith. There should be a general federal law to protect users and businesses from malice, privacy laws (similar to CAN-SPAM,) and a ban on all other end-user license nonsense.

Re: The ‘Terms and Conditions’ Reckoning Is Coming

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

why shouldn't the customer be able to recover damages from you if you had an accident, or were negligent? they were paying you to take care of this stuff for them. if they wanted the risk of accident and incompetence, they'd just do it themselves.

Does that draw any distinction between paying and non-paying customers then as far as their rights? I see tons of "you assume all risks" sorts of Terms of Service, but I have a feeling those are likely just there and don't do much.
Post reply on HN