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

61–70 of 131 posts

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

#61

Post by hugoroy »

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…

You're welcome to discuss this specific point at https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tosdr/b6ryqY9NdMw/discussi...

Since all Twitpic does is hosting public pictures for Tweets, I would assume as a user that if I click "Delete" then the pictures would be… well. Deleted. Having a short period to rescue the picture from a back up would be acceptable.

I don't understand your example with the "high profile blogger".

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

#62

Post by simonbrown »

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…

They could let you delete deleted items permanently, like Dropbox does. Storing data you uploaded with no way to delete it does have privacy implications, since it may be looked at by people working there and could be a lot more sensitive than a cat photo.

I'd say a term that is more unfairly given a thumbs down is giving them a license to user content, since it's impractical to operate a user-generated content site without this.

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

#63

Post by hugoroy »

danso wrote: post #49

For those who have decent experience in machine learning (and NLP) and its theoretical foundations...isn't there enough examples of TOS and conventions of the "art" that a classifier could be built to determine restrictiveness and such? Not completely accurate, but even something that's 60% right would be a huge help to services like the OP's

check out commonterms.net ;)

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

#64

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

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.

Yep. Especially since A/B/C/D/F is confusing to non-Americans. Here in Britain there's the Scottish and English systems, with different A-F or A-G scales.

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

#65

Post by hugoroy »

simonbrown wrote: post #62
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…

They could let you delete deleted items permanently, like Dropbox does. Storing data you uploaded with no way to delete it does have privacy implications, since it may be looked at by people working there and could be a lot more sensitive than a cat photo. I'd say a term that is more unfairly given a thumbs down is giving them a license to user content, since it's impractical to operate a user-generated content site…

I agree. But sometimes the copyright license conceded by the user goes way beyond what's needed for the service. Why do you give rights to sublicense and to transfer to Facebook or Twitter?

Details: http://tos-dr.info/topics.html#copyright-scope

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

#66

Post by hugoroy »

a3_nm wrote: post #60
chrismonsanto wrote: post #54

Given how open source projects are increasingly using GitHub as the canonical repository, I'm a bit disappointed that they can refuse you service for any reason at all. I want to believe that the GH guys are good people and were just lazy here. So, +1 for tos-dr for letting me know, and a potential extra +1 if they help us get GH to change this policy. I'm going to let them know this matters to me, I hope others here…

> I'm a bit disappointed that they can refuse you service for any reason at all. This is actually a problem with the methodology (I think): most probably, none of the service providers pledge to provide service to you, so they can all refuse service for any reason. Github should probably get credit because at least they are honest about it.

That's a fair point. You can discuss this at https://groups.google.com/d/topic/tosdr/hI5Too_uDVk/discussi...

I'll be happy to reply over there :) (if we spread the discussion too much, it will be lost)

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

#67

Post by hugoroy »

ldng wrote: post #58
hugoroy wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The plan is to work with the EFF's tosback https://github.com/pde/tosback2 (they need contributors too BTW) and track changes over time so we can notify people when something wrong is going on (they'd be able to subscribe to a list of services' ToS;DR)

They should use V8 to fetch TOS so that Facebook don't get away with its latest TOS change. http://www.tosback.org/diff.php?vid=1740 Yes, it's in Javascript so not crawlable by TOSBack. The TOS is obfuscated to ... protect its privacy ? So ironic coming from those who claim privacy is dead.

tosback.org is no longer updated.

Yes, the facebook TOS are difficult to archive: http://wayback.archive.org/web/*/http://www.facebook.com/leg... issue on GH if you have a solution: https://github.com/pde/tosback2-data/issues/1

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

#68

Post by rhizome »

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…

despite that being an important feature for any site that lets users delete their own content.

Well...no. How is it important for a site that lets users delete their own content not delete it? Your statement is self-contradictory.

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

#69

Post by varikin »

arnarbi wrote: post #21
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'm not from the US, but doesn't F have a different meaning than A-D? I.e. it means you failed and have to do the test/project/whatever again? A-E is logical I'd say.

Though, is colleges (at least in Minnesota), D is also usually failing grade.

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

#70

Post by altarelli »

hugoroy wrote: post #37
benatkin wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I noticed that it's under the AGPL. That might be an issue for developing a Chrome plugin.

AGPL is our JS+HTML+CSS code. The data itself (JSON) is CC-BY-SA.

would it be possible to add ixquick and webchat.freenode you suggest?
Post reply on HN