4 ms·

Which TOS? I might have accepted terms when I created a Google Account but in no way do I agree to a TOS by visiting a URL.

by Bootvis 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago
Try using google from a fresh install, they´ll force you to accept their TOS.
- Bootvis 10y ago
  Are they A/B testing this or is acceptance IP-based? I reinstalled recently and I didn't see it. Firefox in private navigation mode also lets me use it without forcing me to agree with anything.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    Lucky you. I get their stupid modal overlay more often than I'm happy with. On top of that it now usually defaults to Dutch and Dutch results even when I don't want this. Highly annoying.
MarkMc 10y ago
To see the terms that Google thinks you have agreed to, click 'Terms' at the bottom of www.google.com If that doesn't hold up in court, in future on your first visit to Google it will simply display some text and require that you click 'I agree' to continue. Either way, it seems reasonable to me that you should agree to their terms in order to use their service.
- croon 10y ago
  So if instead I scrape their site (like they are scraping others) I don't have any opportunity to agree to their terms? Much like their scrapers on other sites? I'm honestly wondering about the double standard. There is a rational way to discuss morality/ethics and subsequent laws regarding most technical aspects, that often mirrors real world (read: offline/analog) scenarios. It's unfortunate that the legal system has instead been appropriated by lawyers.
  - keithb- 10y ago
    >> It's unfortunate that the legal system has instead been appropriated by lawyers. omg, really? It's unfortunate that the internet has instead been appropriated by hackers. It's unfortunate that the stock market has instead been appropriated by traders. It's unfortunate that the asylum has instead been appropriated by inmates.
    - TeMPOraL 10y ago
      Yeah, really. Law is not an end in itself, it's meant to serve a purpose instead. When people, whose jobs is instrumental to the goal, start deciding about what the goal is, bad things happen. The same is with MBAs and businesses.
    - croon 10y ago
      To some extent, yes. When people spend enough time in their given field to know the ins and outs, those less scrupulous tend to bend the rules more and more. While not _strictly_ against the rules it often ends up going against the spirit at the base of the industry. Very few traders went to jail after 2008. Seemingly legal (or at least not illegal). Should they have? Most bright/talented lawyers are likely working (again within the law) to get megacorps or rich people off for something poorer people would not. In our field this OP is one of the issues. What information is free and what information is not? What things I'm allowed to do offline am I allowed to do online? I'm not proposing a solution, but any system populated by humans will be abused by some, and fought for by some idealists, all within that systems rules. Let's take murder: I stab someone: murder. I use a broom to push a flower pot off a balcony hitting someone in the head, killing them: murder. I swat a butterfly in Beijing, causing a chain of events to a container crushing a dock worker in Rotterdam. Murder? If this extreme example comes down to intent it's thought crime, otherwise I'm playing within the rules of the system, and I just killed someone, scot-free. While there apparently were no laws prohibiting the upsale of bad mortgages, and banks having the resources to move the market towards more and worse mortgages, that also was within the systems rules, but I personally think it's far beyond the intended use of that market, and well outside the spirit of the laws. There's a huge difference between judicial justice and what most would agree was "justice". That's where my first comment came in. True about most systems.
- tripzilch 10y ago
  > If that doesn't hold up in court, in future on your first visit to Google it will simply display some text and require that you click 'I agree' to continue. This statement is demonstrably false, as shown by all the places in the world where this type of TOS-nonsense actually does not hold up in court. And in the USA, it's (as usual) even slightly more absurd: The only reason it does hold up in court is because Google can afford justice.
jmngomes 10y ago
I'm under the impression that simply having a visible legal notice like "By visiting this page you agree to our ToS" is enough to bypass that.
- kuschku 10y ago
  Not in the EU, you have to explicitly and manually agree to them.

Which TOS? I might have accepted terms when I created a Google Account but in no way do I agree to a TOS by visiting a URL.

by Bootvis 10y ago

Which TOS? I might have accepted terms when I created a Google Account but in no way do I agree to a TOS by visiting a URL.

jacquesm 10y ago

Try using google from a fresh install, they´ll force you to accept their TOS.

Bootvis 10y ago
Are they A/B testing this or is acceptance IP-based? I reinstalled recently and I didn't see it. Firefox in private navigation mode also lets me use it without forcing me to agree with anything.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  Lucky you. I get their stupid modal overlay more often than I'm happy with. On top of that it now usually defaults to Dutch and Dutch results even when I don't want this. Highly annoying.

MarkMc 10y ago

To see the terms that Google thinks you have agreed to, click 'Terms' at the bottom of www.google.com If that doesn't hold up in court, in future on your first visit to Google it will simply display some text and require that you click 'I agree' to continue. Either way, it seems reasonable to me that you should agree to their terms in order to use their service.

croon 10y ago
So if instead I scrape their site (like they are scraping others) I don't have any opportunity to agree to their terms? Much like their scrapers on other sites? I'm honestly wondering about the double standard. There is a rational way to discuss morality/ethics and subsequent laws regarding most technical aspects, that often mirrors real world (read: offline/analog) scenarios. It's unfortunate that the legal system has instead been appropriated by lawyers.
- keithb- 10y ago
  >> It's unfortunate that the legal system has instead been appropriated by lawyers. omg, really? It's unfortunate that the internet has instead been appropriated by hackers. It's unfortunate that the stock market has instead been appropriated by traders. It's unfortunate that the asylum has instead been appropriated by inmates.
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    Yeah, really. Law is not an end in itself, it's meant to serve a purpose instead. When people, whose jobs is instrumental to the goal, start deciding about what the goal is, bad things happen. The same is with MBAs and businesses.
  - croon 10y ago
    To some extent, yes. When people spend enough time in their given field to know the ins and outs, those less scrupulous tend to bend the rules more and more. While not _strictly_ against the rules it often ends up going against the spirit at the base of the industry. Very few traders went to jail after 2008. Seemingly legal (or at least not illegal). Should they have? Most bright/talented lawyers are likely working (again within the law) to get megacorps or rich people off for something poorer people would not. In our field this OP is one of the issues. What information is free and what information is not? What things I'm allowed to do offline am I allowed to do online? I'm not proposing a solution, but any system populated by humans will be abused by some, and fought for by some idealists, all within that systems rules. Let's take murder: I stab someone: murder. I use a broom to push a flower pot off a balcony hitting someone in the head, killing them: murder. I swat a butterfly in Beijing, causing a chain of events to a container crushing a dock worker in Rotterdam. Murder? If this extreme example comes down to intent it's thought crime, otherwise I'm playing within the rules of the system, and I just killed someone, scot-free. While there apparently were no laws prohibiting the upsale of bad mortgages, and banks having the resources to move the market towards more and worse mortgages, that also was within the systems rules, but I personally think it's far beyond the intended use of that market, and well outside the spirit of the laws. There's a huge difference between judicial justice and what most would agree was "justice". That's where my first comment came in. True about most systems.
tripzilch 10y ago
> If that doesn't hold up in court, in future on your first visit to Google it will simply display some text and require that you click 'I agree' to continue. This statement is demonstrably false, as shown by all the places in the world where this type of TOS-nonsense actually does not hold up in court. And in the USA, it's (as usual) even slightly more absurd: The only reason it does hold up in court is because Google can afford justice.

jmngomes 10y ago

I'm under the impression that simply having a visible legal notice like "By visiting this page you agree to our ToS" is enough to bypass that.

kuschku 10y ago
Not in the EU, you have to explicitly and manually agree to them.