5 ms·

Users already opt into using a service like WhatsApp. They are presented with TOS on first use / account creation. Whatsapp changed their TOS and presented the

Users already opt into using a service like WhatsApp. They are presented with TOS on first use / account creation. Whatsapp changed their TOS and presented the new TOS to existing users when they first opened the app after the change. Doesn't this already satisfy your requirements? It is, of course, well known that users never read TOS / EULA for software or services.

pdkl95 10y ago
> WhatsApp I'm not talking about WhatsApp. > users never read TOS / EULA Then the user hasn't given informed consent! It's the responsibility of the collecting party to make sure that the user is aware of all aspects of the transaction.
- danarmak 10y ago
  How? If the TOS text is displayed, and the user clicks OK, how can the service provider make sure the user actually read it, let alone understood it correctly? Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Do you have a positive example of how to do this successfully?
  - TeMPOraL 10y ago
    > Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Well, that's technically a problem of service provider. If you're afraid your product won't be used because of a complicated TOS, then... simplify the TOS. Drop the tons of legal bullshit, and stop hiding shady stuff in it. The more I think about it the more I like the incentive structure it creates.
    - danarmak 10y ago
      The GPLv2 contains 2400 words. The AGPLv3 contains 5090 words. They aren't enough for casual non-technical users to read and grok. And they can't be greatly simplified without changing their meaning. Licenses are long and complex not only because they have "bullshit" and "shady stuff" in them. This is an unfortunate fact of life. It's true that some services can do with much simpler TOS. The BSD 3-clause license is 220 words long (most of them in scary caps). But how short and simple does a license need to be to make the average user actually read it before clicking OK? My guess is most users would read 1-2 sentences. But some users, as soon as they see a dialog with a single "OK" or "Next" button or an "I agree" checkbox, will automatically click it without reading any text at all: this can be practically muscle memory for people used to next-next-finish installation wizards.
      - pdkl95 10y ago
        > GPLv2 ... AGPLv3 ... BSD 3-clause None of those licenses are for the user of the software. Some are long(-ish) because they address copyright law and are intended to be read by software authors and distributors, who presumably have the luxury of time to read and research which license they would like to use for their software or 3rd party software they want to redistribute. > Licenses are long and complex not only because they have "bullshit" and "shady stuff" in them. That's fine. Now find a way to explain it plainly to the user so they can make an informed decision. > But how short and simple does a license need to be to make the average user actually read it before clicking OK? Well, that varies, but you can be sure that anybody that clicked OK after only a few seconds did not read anything. Choosing to continue when you know the contract wasn't read is prima facie evidence that no contract was established. However, the larger problem is you think simply presenting legalease and waiting for someone to click OK can ever meet the standard of informed consent[1], which is a much stronger requirement than the click that's required for some contracts. Contract law is sufficient for most of what's in an TOS, but data is very important and most people have a poor understanding of what is being collected and what is possible when their data is aggregated with other sources. To protect people, the higher standard of informed consent should be used before collecting any data. This would only apply to the data you want to collect, not the entire TOS. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Valid_elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Valid_element...
criddell 10y ago
> They are presented with TOS on first use Exactly. So I printed it out, made the changes I wanted to see, signed it and send it to Facebook with a notice that continuing to provide me with service constitutes acceptance. I didn't really do this, but it seems like it should be as legally binding as a click through EULA.
- danarmak 10y ago
  "Clicking means agreement" at least makes sense, even if it might not be enough to satisfy contract law in some countries. "Keeping doing what you were doing anyway and ignoring me means agreement" is clearly nonsense. If your argument is that click-through agreements are invalid in general, then no Internet services at all are legal, no matter how benevolent their TOS is to the user, how simple it is, or how clearly it's written and presented. The same goes for software licenses. The law says that by default, absent a contract that says otherwise, you are not allowed to use software, and you are not allowed to use online services that require login and a TOS click-through. If you want to use them, you have to agree to some offer made by the provider or the copyright holder. And you can only agree to an offer they actually make.

pdkl95 10y ago

> WhatsApp I'm not talking about WhatsApp. > users never read TOS / EULA Then the user hasn't given informed consent! It's the responsibility of the collecting party to make sure that the user is aware of all aspects of the transaction.

danarmak 10y ago
How? If the TOS text is displayed, and the user clicks OK, how can the service provider make sure the user actually read it, let alone understood it correctly? Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Do you have a positive example of how to do this successfully?
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  > Should the user be required to correctly answer some quiz questions about the TOS every time they use the product? I don't think any users would agree to that, for any product. Well, that's technically a problem of service provider. If you're afraid your product won't be used because of a complicated TOS, then... simplify the TOS. Drop the tons of legal bullshit, and stop hiding shady stuff in it. The more I think about it the more I like the incentive structure it creates.
  - danarmak 10y ago
    The GPLv2 contains 2400 words. The AGPLv3 contains 5090 words. They aren't enough for casual non-technical users to read and grok. And they can't be greatly simplified without changing their meaning. Licenses are long and complex not only because they have "bullshit" and "shady stuff" in them. This is an unfortunate fact of life. It's true that some services can do with much simpler TOS. The BSD 3-clause license is 220 words long (most of them in scary caps). But how short and simple does a license need to be to make the average user actually read it before clicking OK? My guess is most users would read 1-2 sentences. But some users, as soon as they see a dialog with a single "OK" or "Next" button or an "I agree" checkbox, will automatically click it without reading any text at all: this can be practically muscle memory for people used to next-next-finish installation wizards.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      > GPLv2 ... AGPLv3 ... BSD 3-clause None of those licenses are for the user of the software. Some are long(-ish) because they address copyright law and are intended to be read by software authors and distributors, who presumably have the luxury of time to read and research which license they would like to use for their software or 3rd party software they want to redistribute. > Licenses are long and complex not only because they have "bullshit" and "shady stuff" in them. That's fine. Now find a way to explain it plainly to the user so they can make an informed decision. > But how short and simple does a license need to be to make the average user actually read it before clicking OK? Well, that varies, but you can be sure that anybody that clicked OK after only a few seconds did not read anything. Choosing to continue when you know the contract wasn't read is prima facie evidence that no contract was established. However, the larger problem is you think simply presenting legalease and waiting for someone to click OK can ever meet the standard of informed consent[1], which is a much stronger requirement than the click that's required for some contracts. Contract law is sufficient for most of what's in an TOS, but data is very important and most people have a poor understanding of what is being collected and what is possible when their data is aggregated with other sources. To protect people, the higher standard of informed consent should be used before collecting any data. This would only apply to the data you want to collect, not the entire TOS. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Valid_elements https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent#Valid_element...

criddell 10y ago

> They are presented with TOS on first use Exactly. So I printed it out, made the changes I wanted to see, signed it and send it to Facebook with a notice that continuing to provide me with service constitutes acceptance. I didn't really do this, but it seems like it should be as legally binding as a click through EULA.

danarmak 10y ago
"Clicking means agreement" at least makes sense, even if it might not be enough to satisfy contract law in some countries. "Keeping doing what you were doing anyway and ignoring me means agreement" is clearly nonsense. If your argument is that click-through agreements are invalid in general, then no Internet services at all are legal, no matter how benevolent their TOS is to the user, how simple it is, or how clearly it's written and presented. The same goes for software licenses. The law says that by default, absent a contract that says otherwise, you are not allowed to use software, and you are not allowed to use online services that require login and a TOS click-through. If you want to use them, you have to agree to some offer made by the provider or the copyright holder. And you can only agree to an offer they actually make.