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

Click (2016)

clickclickclick.click

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

Re: Click (2016)

#61

Post by j2j8 »

komali2 wrote: post #46
dheera wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also of the opinion that at lot of T&C are basically signing under duress and I consider them invalid. Like if I have to sign a T&C with Google Play and a T&C with your city's sanctioned parking app in order to park on the street, I consider both of those T&C's invalid. As a legal resident of the country with a legally owned car and legal driving license, I should be able to park and pay, I shouldn't have to agre…

Your city doesn't have a way to pay for parking with cash on public roads? It's not a private lot? That should simply be illegal.

Cash for parking on streets has gone in many parts of Australia

Re: Click (2016)

#62

Post by ezwoodland »

bruce511 wrote: post #60
dheera wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also of the opinion that at lot of T&C are basically signing under duress and I consider them invalid. Like if I have to sign a T&C with Google Play and a T&C with your city's sanctioned parking app in order to park on the street, I consider both of those T&C's invalid. As a legal resident of the country with a legally owned car and legal driving license, I should be able to park and pay, I shouldn't have to agre…

Look, I understand the hate against terms and conditions. They're not a lot of fun. But the alternative is worse. Let's imagine a world where terms and conditions don't apply; Firstly, businesses can do whatever they like. There are no terms to agree to. They simply function in whatever way they "consider to be valid". If a customer disagrees with what is valid or not, hey, that's what courts are for. And given there…

> imagine a world where ...

It already works like that.

> customers never bother to submit their own T&C's so they're not fairly represented

You can't. Not a question of bother.

> if you don't, then don't use the service

The problem is that this is mostly not an option. The service doesn't have competition or competitors don't have better T&C. Sometimes, like in the original commenter's example, there is a legally enforced monopoly.

At least the government has to enforce certain rights when using government provided services.

Re: Click (2016)

#63

Post by pixelmelt »

Barbing wrote: post #36

Awesome. Looking for this as an iOS app, since I learned dismissing notifications phones home. (Useful feature for multidevice cloud services but can be creepy, companies learning the notifications we expand or leftswipe away… learning our sleep schedules and preferences and all that in ways we might not have specifically expected in this exact case) Apps know when we’re on WiFi, when we force quit, have potential to…

Try blackbox, its a puzzle game that will have you messing with device settings to beat levels

Re: Click (2016)

#64

Post by Barbing »

pixelmelt wrote: post #63
Barbing wrote: post #36

Awesome. Looking for this as an iOS app, since I learned dismissing notifications phones home. (Useful feature for multidevice cloud services but can be creepy, companies learning the notifications we expand or leftswipe away… learning our sleep schedules and preferences and all that in ways we might not have specifically expected in this exact case) Apps know when we’re on WiFi, when we force quit, have potential to…

Try blackbox, its a puzzle game that will have you messing with device settings to beat levels

ooh neat! (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blackbox/id962969578)

Re: Click (2016)

#65

Post by taneq »

dheera wrote: post #44
Sophira wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yeah, we include it in our terms and condition and privacy page Please be honest with yourself. People don't read terms and conditions. There's a good chance you don't read terms and conditions. And even if you do, odds are better than even that you don't fully understand all the legal implications. Terms and conditions pages nowadays are there mostly to provide legal protection under the guise of "the user told us…

I'm also of the opinion that at lot of T&C are basically signing under duress and I consider them invalid. Like if I have to sign a T&C with Google Play and a T&C with your city's sanctioned parking app in order to park on the street, I consider both of those T&C's invalid. As a legal resident of the country with a legally owned car and legal driving license, I should be able to park and pay, I shouldn't have to agre…

Especially clickthrough license for software on devices that you've already bought. You turn on your new phone and it shows 300 pages of legalese. You cannot use your new phone until you press 'I accept.' If you don't like it, return the phone. All the other phones have their own equivalent T&C.

Re: Click (2016)

#66

Post by jrowen »

latexr wrote: post #30
jrowen wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a very interesting duality forming around privacy. It seems like most people don't really care if they're being filmed, or if their data is being slurped up six ways from Sunday, as long as it's aggregated and going through automated systems. But as soon as it feels like an actual person is looking at individual behavior, it's creepy (which is, of course, always a possibility, but plausible deniabilit…

> It seems like most people don't really care if they're being filmed, or if their data is being slurped up six ways from Sunday For the majority of people I don’t think it’s true that they don’t care, but rather that they don’t know, don’t understand the implications, or don’t have the luxury of being able to do anything about it. In the instances where I was able to have a longer discussion with someone to really e…

People do know on some level though. There was enough willpower to get the cookie bullshit on every website.

I think it's just that it's more of a visceral lizard-brain thing than a logical thing. Like how you can go through life eating meat every day, then someone sits you down and tells you the horrors of that industry and shows you a cow being butchered, and you go oh that's horrible, and then most likely put it out of mind and continue eating meat.

Re: Click (2016)

#67

Post by Sophira »

bruce511 wrote: post #60
dheera wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also of the opinion that at lot of T&C are basically signing under duress and I consider them invalid. Like if I have to sign a T&C with Google Play and a T&C with your city's sanctioned parking app in order to park on the street, I consider both of those T&C's invalid. As a legal resident of the country with a legally owned car and legal driving license, I should be able to park and pay, I shouldn't have to agre…

Look, I understand the hate against terms and conditions. They're not a lot of fun. But the alternative is worse. Let's imagine a world where terms and conditions don't apply; Firstly, businesses can do whatever they like. There are no terms to agree to. They simply function in whatever way they "consider to be valid". If a customer disagrees with what is valid or not, hey, that's what courts are for. And given there…

The problem with this line of thinking is that businesses don't expect you to read T&Cs.

This site itself is, funnily enough, a good example of this (and, to be fair, an outlier). When you sign up to an account here, you're not asked to agree to any terms. There's nothing that forces you to agree to any terms of service. The site does have them[0], but you can only access them by clicking the "Legal" link in the footer, and you're never required to do so. Yet people here are, by and large, behaving themselves, largely due to good moderation on the part of dang and others.

But if there were to be a lawsuit, for whatever reason, it's potentially possible that someone could successfully argue that they never had to agree to any terms. It's a technicality, of course - again, very few people read terms of service, and if they did, you'd think somebody would have noticed this omission by now - but an arguably legally actionable one.

Which leads me back to my point - the only reason that businesses make you agree to terms of service is because if they didn't, they could get lawsuits that might be found in favour of the plaintiff. Businesses don't want that, so they include the checkbox.

[0] https://www.ycombinator.com/legal/#tou

Re: Click (2016)

#68

Post by neuroelectron »

I seem to be getting random events that have nothing to do with my activity. I'm on Brave on an iPad mini. I'm guessing the JS activity looks like fingerprinting and it's being spoofed.

Re: Click (2016)

#69

Post by matheusmoreira »

foxfired wrote: post #14

I've always added analytics scripts on websites I worked on. It was second nature for me. Then when I got my own start up, I didn't just add regular analytics but one that tracks mouse movements so you can watch sessions back like a video [0]. I told a friend about my start up and she jumped on it immediately. I opened the tool and watched her interaction. Then I told her "oh so you opened the dev tools" She immediat…

> Yeah, we include it in our terms and condition and privacy page

Nobody reads that stuff.

Re: Click (2016)

#70

Post by matheusmoreira »

bruce511 wrote: post #60
dheera wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also of the opinion that at lot of T&C are basically signing under duress and I consider them invalid. Like if I have to sign a T&C with Google Play and a T&C with your city's sanctioned parking app in order to park on the street, I consider both of those T&C's invalid. As a legal resident of the country with a legally owned car and legal driving license, I should be able to park and pay, I shouldn't have to agre…

Look, I understand the hate against terms and conditions. They're not a lot of fun. But the alternative is worse. Let's imagine a world where terms and conditions don't apply; Firstly, businesses can do whatever they like. There are no terms to agree to. They simply function in whatever way they "consider to be valid". If a customer disagrees with what is valid or not, hey, that's what courts are for. And given there…

> Firstly, businesses can do whatever they like.

Already the case.

Every single terms and conditions document is just legal boilerplate that boils down to "we can do whatever we want, while you can do nothing we don't want".

Post reply on HN