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

Terms of Service; Didn't Read

tosdr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#51

Post by jhallenworld »

The problem with click-on ToS is that they include heavy handed legalize designed to protect the service provider but for a casual service which is low cost or nearly free to you (they are monetizing you). You certainly would read it (or pay a lawyer to review it) if you were paying someone $100K for engineering work or something like that. It's not worth your time for something which is free.

A rating service like this actually sounds like a very good idea- even one worth paying a small amount for (they very well will need money to protect themselves from lawsuits due to bad ratings). You pay the rating service about what you pay the web service- almost nothing.

Anyway, how else can a class push back against ToS that are not worth reading?

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#52

Post by mullingitover »

dctoedt wrote: post #9
ifuck wrote: post #5

As a non-technical person from a completely different industry, my take on TOS is this: I don't care. Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. If they grant me any rights in their TOS - do I trust them? No. I would never keep data in t…

> Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. In the U.S., Web site terms of service / terms of use can indeed be a legal, binding contract: + If you click on "I agree" or something like it, then it's very likely to be binding, as more than one user has discovered to his chagrin. [1] + If you continue to use the Web site, and the site has a sufficiently-prominent notice that terms apply, then those…

The key here is to have a few drinks before clicking 'I Agree.' Contracts you enter into under the influence aren't valid.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#53

Post by ufo »

dctoedt wrote: post #9
ifuck wrote: post #5

As a non-technical person from a completely different industry, my take on TOS is this: I don't care. Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. If they grant me any rights in their TOS - do I trust them? No. I would never keep data in t…

> Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. In the U.S., Web site terms of service / terms of use can indeed be a legal, binding contract: + If you click on "I agree" or something like it, then it's very likely to be binding, as more than one user has discovered to his chagrin. [1] + If you continue to use the Web site, and the site has a sufficiently-prominent notice that terms apply, then those…

your browse_wrap link has an extraneous semicolon.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#54

Post by MattHeard »

nanidin wrote: post #50
dctoedt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder if you can click on "I agree", and lie. Then you wouldn't be bound by the terms, because you didn't consent to them .... It doesn't work that way --- courts look to objective manifestations of consent, not subjective intentions. In kids' terms: Crossing your fingers behind your back doesn't get you off the hook.

Most companies maintain pretty extensive analytics data - would a court consider whether or not a given user ever even actually looked at the ToS as some kind of objective proof that they couldn't have possibly agreed with it? Or say the user visited the ToS page, but only for 30 seconds - that is, not long enough that reading the entire ToS is within the realm of human possibility?

Some terms forms require you to scroll to the bottom, but they don't need to. Clicking "I agree" is good enough for you to be bound by the agreement.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#56

Post by mikelat »

I like this more for the fact that I get a better idea of what these companies are willing to say publicly about utilizing the data they have on you. TOSes are ultimately meaningless, but comparing sites with things like "your data remains yours" and "your data becomes ours" speaks a lot towards company policy.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#57

Post by tempestn »

darkstar999 wrote: post #42

This inspired me to look for HN's ToS. As far as I can find, it is "When you click on a link, our server will send you the corresponding page." http://www.ycombinator.com/legal/ Really? That's it?

That's awesome.

Also, we should clearly file a class action suit for breach of contract the next time HN goes down. Would be tough to show damages though. My productivity would probably go up.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#58

Post by jorgis »

kristiandupont wrote: post #18

There is a lot of legal stuff that I don't understand but one thing in particular stands out: "Terms may be changed any time at their discretion, without notice to the user". Unless I am missing something, that basically says "we got your signature once, and we can now put it on whatever we like".

You could also read that as "just ignore this document. We didn't want it to stand up in court anyway."

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#59

Post by hugoroy »

ifuck wrote: post #5

As a non-technical person from a completely different industry, my take on TOS is this: I don't care. Why would anyone care? Is it a legal binding contract between me and the comany? No. It might be taken into account if we go into court, but if they have it in their TOS that I bought an elephant from them - it will not hold. If they grant me any rights in their TOS - do I trust them? No. I would never keep data in t…

Your comment is unclear. Your main argument is that you don’t care, but why don’t you care?

I see two hypotheses.

1. Because you don’t care about your rights at all > Then this project is not for you, move on.

2. Because you think the terms and privacy policies of services you use online are not “binding”? > Then you’re very naive and a bit ignorant about the law.

It’s alright to not know how the law and how contract works exactly, that’s why you need this project even more; because that’s what it does: it makes things simpler to understand for you.

Re: Terms of Service; Didn't Read

#60

Post by xorcist »

rev_bird wrote: post #17

One of my favorite ToS items is from LinkedIn: You aren't allowed to "deep-link to our sites for any purpose, (i.e. creating or posting a link to a LinkedIn web page other than LinkedIn’s home page)".[1] The act of linking to a publicly available website is against that website's terms. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/legal/user-agreement

I hope they terminated your account for that flagrant breach of your service agreement made in your post!
Post reply on HN