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

ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

tos-dr.info

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 131 posts

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#101

Post by nodata »

lovskogen wrote: post #47
aresant wrote: post #18

Great concept and smart execution. A suggestion - rather than rating "A" through "E" why not change to the more recognizable (for US audience at least) scale of "A through F" (A/B/C/D/F) which we're all mercilessly trained to recognize through years of school grades? "E" as your worst rating confused me at first glance - could be interpreted as "Excellent"

I vouch for a more international 5-star system.

The stars are crucial: if we used numbers instead it would fail (some countries use 1 for best, some 5 for best).

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#102

Post by tsahyt »

jasonkester wrote: post #55

Seems a bit biased in places. One of the example sites has a big scary red X next to "Deleted images are not really deleted", despite that being an important feature for any site that lets users delete their own content. It's one of those tradeoffs you make where you trade a tiny fraction of risk (e.g., that somebody might break into your system and steal the exact cat photo that one high profile blogger was embarras…

The only sensible choice would be to mark items as deleted for a while, say a week or two and then delete them for real. The site may even notify the user before the permanent deletion, so he/she can think twice about what to get rid of or not.

Also, this is not about whether someone steals your content but about it being your content. You should be able to do whatever you want to your content and that includes deletion.

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#103

Post by zvrba »

BobPalmer wrote: post #95

Given the purpose of the site and it's broad potential reach (and the fact that it's not a domain that requires pushing the envelope in terms of rich user experience), I was pretty suprised to see that the entire 'Rated Services' section was a giant white block in Internet Explorer 9. I could understand lack of support for IE7 (or perhaps crappy formatting), would raise an eyebrow at lack of support for IE8 (given th…

When I first loaded the page, I was unsure about whether they have no sites, i.e., whether they're just showing a proof of concept. The text said they were planning to review ToS of major sites by middle of july, so that prompted me to fire up Opera.

If somebody wonders why I want to use IE9: easily configurable and non-obtrusive, BUILT-IN plugin blockers and ad blockers [+ do-not-track lists].

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#104

Post by hugoroy »

pilif wrote: post #77

I'd be very careful counting the requirements for cookies as a bad thing (as seen in the github section): First-Party session cookies are a totally valid use of cookies and actually help improving the security in that a session-id in a cookie will never be copy & pasted by accident (it happens to URL-based session-id's at times) and cookies can be marked as both httponly and secure, making it more difficult to imposs…

Thanks for your feedback. The whole explanation can be found about cookies can be found here. Tell us what you think!

http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#cookies

> 5 GitHub requires cookies

5: means it's a low score. So it's considered bad, but it doesn't influence very much the whole class of GitHub.

> GitHub requires cookies to work and misleads you to

> believe that you remain anonymous while cookies contain

> “unique identifiers”. However, only session cookies are

> used, not persistant cookies.

The whole discussion is here https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tosdr/gyMiAkV5ZG0/discussi...

Do you agree/disagree? We welcome contributions!

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#105

Post by xyzzyz »

rmc wrote: post #51
aresant wrote: post #18

Great concept and smart execution. A suggestion - rather than rating "A" through "E" why not change to the more recognizable (for US audience at least) scale of "A through F" (A/B/C/D/F) which we're all mercilessly trained to recognize through years of school grades? "E" as your worst rating confused me at first glance - could be interpreted as "Excellent"

Wait the US doesn't have an 'E'? (Is 'F' short for Fail? I thought it was just the continuation of the sequence). Regardless, at least A is best, B is worse than that, etc. which makes sense.

In Poland, high schools have 1-6 grade scale (6 is the best), but universities have 2-5 scale (5 is the best, 2 is a failing grade). Decades ago, high schools also had 2-5 (or maybe 2-6) scale. I have no idea why the 1 grade is nonexistent.

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#106

Post by rmc »

hugoroy wrote: post #57
rmc wrote: post #50

Suggestion: Include a "Under EU Data Protection law: all/some/none" category. Companies in the EU, are required to do various things under EU data protection law. E.g. they are legally required to protect your personal data, they can only use the personal data for things you agreed to, they must tell you what data they keep on you if you ask, if they are wrong and you tell them, they are legally required to update th…

Yes. Differences between legislations is one thing that's making the task harder. I think it's better to focus to what the terms actually state. But I always keep in mind the jurisdiction under which the company operates as it can influence the meaning of the terms. However I'd fear to get to the other extreme and to end up making a rating system saying which legislation is better than the other. It's not the scope.…

I can see why you don't want to have dozens of different "In juristicion X" and then rank them, but I suggest including EU law, since it includes a large amount of pro-user stuff, and would be an easy way to know what you can do.

You're already including references to the US Congress, why not let us EU citizens have something too?

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#108

Post by michielbdejong »

BobPalmer wrote: post #95

Given the purpose of the site and it's broad potential reach (and the fact that it's not a domain that requires pushing the envelope in terms of rich user experience), I was pretty suprised to see that the entire 'Rated Services' section was a giant white block in Internet Explorer 9. I could understand lack of support for IE7 (or perhaps crappy formatting), would raise an eyebrow at lack of support for IE8 (given th…

that's my fault, and was definitely not intended, sorry. thanks for reporting it, i'll make sure it gets fixed somehow.

Re: ToS;DR — TL;DR for Terms of Service and Privacy Policy

#109

Post by hugoroy »

BobPalmer wrote: post #95

Given the purpose of the site and it's broad potential reach (and the fact that it's not a domain that requires pushing the envelope in terms of rich user experience), I was pretty suprised to see that the entire 'Rated Services' section was a giant white block in Internet Explorer 9. I could understand lack of support for IE7 (or perhaps crappy formatting), would raise an eyebrow at lack of support for IE8 (given th…

thank you very much for reporting this. As we're all working on non-windows systems, we would not have found out by ourselves!
Post reply on HN