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

US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

451–458 of 458 posts

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#451

Post by throwaway27448 »

anonym29 wrote: post #445
Leno1225 wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the social contract, that’s the dual contracts of residency (protection from fellow residents) and citizenship (protection from foreign elements). You have the opportunity of consent; on your majority you can leave the country for another that’ll have you. There’s a cost to it, but it’s fairly minimal in most places.

That there costs and requirements imposed by a refusal to consent means that your consent or lack thereof is subject to coercion, rendering the arrangement non-consensual. This argument would be valid if you could renounce US citizenship without first producing another citizenship. But it's not, and you can't. I never asked for a US citizenship, I don't want a US citizenship, and yet I'm bound by it and not free to r…

FYI you can absolutely renounce citizenship without having another one handy. the us will simply extract extreme punishments on you for doing so—for most people it's simply not worth it.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#453

Post by stinkbeetle »

amiga386 wrote: post #308
stinkbeetle wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US contract law has the concept of unconscionability already. You're not listening to me, my question is why should those things be allowed but nothing else? "Because a severe power imbalance allows for abuse, and governments should prohibit such abuse." does not address my question because it does not explain why the would-be permitted things are not subject to severe power imbalance or abuse of a type that governme…

The GP alluded to "a handful of terms everyone agrees are reasonable". Regardless of what those are, their hypothetical definition makes them implicitly reasonable. You can circularly reason that these hypothetical univerally-reasonable terms are univerally-reasonable because it is impossible to abuse them with a severe power imbalance. Re-reading your post, you appear to be asking if the GP would ban all contract te…

Yes they did not just allude to them, they gave several concrete examples. And were then were completely unable to substantiate their arguments or provide any reasoning for their position.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#454

Post by anonym29 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #451
anonym29 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That there costs and requirements imposed by a refusal to consent means that your consent or lack thereof is subject to coercion, rendering the arrangement non-consensual. This argument would be valid if you could renounce US citizenship without first producing another citizenship. But it's not, and you can't. I never asked for a US citizenship, I don't want a US citizenship, and yet I'm bound by it and not free to r…

FYI you can absolutely renounce citizenship without having another one handy. the us will simply extract extreme punishments on you for doing so—for most people it's simply not worth it.

This is factually incorrect in the United States. You cannot renounce your citizenship without producing evidence of another citizenship - that is a statutory requirement, alongside exit taxes, to renounce your US citizenship.

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#455

Post by blharr »

gruez wrote: post #227
blharr wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but even the specific case isn't about TOS within the limits of screen time or online browsing. It's about tracking your physical location via Tile trackers. Sure, you can get off streaming services, but you're still signing a TOS or waiver by using any service. Meta/Google/etc has a profile on you even if you've never logged in based on others sharing their contacts and pictures that may include you.

>It's about tracking your physical location via Tile trackers. 1. If the complaint is about non-consensual tracking, using a gadget that's specifically designed and advertised for tracking, and that you have to specifically go out and buy and put on your body is a terrible example. 2. Tile trackers have more or less been replaced with airtags and whatever google's equivalent is, which is designed in such a way that p…

It's a completely grotesque point you've got. Tiles are advertised as used for personally tracking your devices. To the average person its the same technology as a Bluetooth earbud. Not a device for tracking at a central whatever 100 companies want that data.

And for 2... thats completely irrelevant. "More or less"? So... a hundred of millions of tiles still out there is "more or less"?

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#456

Post by seabass-labrax »

tialaramex wrote: post #409
masfuerte wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a statutory obligation. It works for the consumer because it's not the rail company that gets to choose the terms.

The terms of the contract are required by central government, but it is still a contract. One of the things your government could and should do for you is stand up to this sort of bullying by those who have more money and power.

This is my feeling exactly - there's a lot wrong with predatory contracts, but the problem is with the predatory part, not the mere fact they're contracts!

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#457

Post by malklera »

The only language companies understand is $$$; if you do not like their practice of ToS, do not use the app.

I have never read a ToS. I wonder how many of the services I use I would continue using if I did read them (probably most if not all).

Re: US Court of Appeals: TOS may be updated by email, use can imply consent [pdf]

#458

Post by account42 »

II2II wrote: post #450
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You joke, but if I email Sony customer support with an updated terms of service that says the service is free now, is that equally legitimate?

The problem with that argument is that Sony is the one offering the service and the customer is the one using the service. The customer has the right to request changes to the terms of service and Sony has the right to refuse to provide the service if the customer asks for changes to the terms of service. So the customer is at a distinct disadvantage. The logic makes a certain amount of sense, but the logic falls fla…

In many cases it's actually the user providing the service (free content which can be monetized with ads) and the website is the one benefiting from it.
Post reply on HN