4 ms·

What if your landlord cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have 3 guests visit and stay with you this month, instead

What if your landlord cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have 3 guests visit and stay with you this month, instead of the 2 allowed by the lease? Would that be okay with you? And that wouldn't even be as bad as this, because a lease is a far more legally applicable document unlike TOS's which no one reads. Further, at least your violation there is related to your apartment. The TOS being violated here was for a hardware device that isn't the service being disrupted. And the worst part is that the act that was in violation is one that governments want to encourage, to the point that owners are protected from being sued. Since Google can't attack them the ordinary way, they are using their leverage on those users with their other products to prevent them from conducting this act. This whole thing is terrible in many ways.

relics443 10y ago
A. Landlords can most certainly terminate your lease because of that. They can't throw you out immediately because of tenant protection laws, and they have to let you get your belongings once you're evicted. B. ToS are just as legally binding as a lease (provided they are presented in the right manner, which is how Google presents them). No one cares of you actually read them or not. As soon as you check the box that said you read and agree to them, you're legally bound to follow them. C. No one ever said that repercussions have to match the violation. As I said, perhaps suspending the account is the only way Google can comply or protect themselves legally. D. Google has no interest in attacking anyone. They simply follow the protocol they set for this occurrence. The common denominator here seems to be that people are getting outraged that they can't break the rules and get away with it.
- Hnrobert42 10y ago
  Are you seriously trying to argue the current ToS situation is reasonable? Seriously?
  - relics443 10y ago
    I'm telling you a fact. A ToS is legally binding. Outrage, and wishing it weren't so won't change that.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Actually, many aren't. Many Terms of Service agreements or EULAs are looked at quite critically today because of the fact that companies reasonably expect that nobody has read them. Sensible provisions tend to be upheld, unfair ones... aren't always. If I install an app, and buried in it's EULA is a requirement that I become their indentured servant, it isn't enforceable.
    - Asooka 10y ago
      5¢ have been deposited to your Google Wallet.
tw04 10y ago
What if your "landlord" (and by landlord I mean your buddy who is letting you stay in his apartment complex free of charge other than making you read through the occasional newspaper flier) cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have a raging house party that encompassed the entire 20th floor of his building. None of those apartments were occupied so you just broke down the doors and let people run wild. They destroyed pretty much every apartment on the floor. Would you expect that to happen? Would you want a lot of sympathy from other people because he just cut you off without prior warning? No? The whole thing is terrible only in the way that people like this and the dealer who buy up products that are high in demand and low in supply are the scum of the earth. They provide absolutely no value to the supply chain and make life more difficult for honest buyers.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  Equating "life more difficult" with "destroying apartments" is silly.
  - tw04 10y ago
    Equating "copy of my data" with "my housing situation" is even more silly. Google isn't TAKING anything from you by locking the account, they are simply destroying what should be one of many COPIES of your data.
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Sorry, but you misread that, the housing situation comes into play by way of gmail also being a mailing receipt address and key for many locks.
      - tw04 10y ago
        This would be the equivalent of you putting your key in a mailbox on the corner that you don't own, free of use, with no guarantees around it being there at any point in time. One day you go to grab your key and it's gone. Who's at fault? Google LITERALLY tells you in the TOS that you both don't own any content served up by their platform, and that they may suspend you at any time they choose. >We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct. >Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. If that's where you're storing your "key" - you should probably re-evaluate your personal storage policies.
candiodari 10y ago
Presumably the argument would be "because otherwise the landlord accepts legal responsibility". Which means that if your apartment burns down with 3 guests in it he not only is not covered by fire insurance (that contractually puts occupancy limits because of legal demands on them), but actually has to pay for the ambulance and medical costs because "he created an unsafe situation". So "why would people complain" ... it's a matter of perspective and maybe ideology. I would say the other reaction is easier : make sure you have 5 google accounts. One is email and you DO NOT use it for anything even remotely business related.

relics443 10y ago

A. Landlords can most certainly terminate your lease because of that. They can't throw you out immediately because of tenant protection laws, and they have to let you get your belongings once you're evicted. B. ToS are just as legally binding as a lease (provided they are presented in the right manner, which is how Google presents them). No one cares of you actually read them or not. As soon as you check the box that said you read and agree to them, you're legally bound to follow them. C. No one ever said that repercussions have to match the violation. As I said, perhaps suspending the account is the only way Google can comply or protect themselves legally. D. Google has no interest in attacking anyone. They simply follow the protocol they set for this occurrence. The common denominator here seems to be that people are getting outraged that they can't break the rules and get away with it.

Hnrobert42 10y ago
Are you seriously trying to argue the current ToS situation is reasonable? Seriously?
- relics443 10y ago
  I'm telling you a fact. A ToS is legally binding. Outrage, and wishing it weren't so won't change that.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Actually, many aren't. Many Terms of Service agreements or EULAs are looked at quite critically today because of the fact that companies reasonably expect that nobody has read them. Sensible provisions tend to be upheld, unfair ones... aren't always. If I install an app, and buried in it's EULA is a requirement that I become their indentured servant, it isn't enforceable.
  - Asooka 10y ago
    5¢ have been deposited to your Google Wallet.

tw04 10y ago

What if your "landlord" (and by landlord I mean your buddy who is letting you stay in his apartment complex free of charge other than making you read through the occasional newspaper flier) cut off access to your apartment, and everything inside, because you happened to have a raging house party that encompassed the entire 20th floor of his building. None of those apartments were occupied so you just broke down the doors and let people run wild. They destroyed pretty much every apartment on the floor. Would you expect that to happen? Would you want a lot of sympathy from other people because he just cut you off without prior warning? No? The whole thing is terrible only in the way that people like this and the dealer who buy up products that are high in demand and low in supply are the scum of the earth. They provide absolutely no value to the supply chain and make life more difficult for honest buyers.

Mithaldu 10y ago
Equating "life more difficult" with "destroying apartments" is silly.
- tw04 10y ago
  Equating "copy of my data" with "my housing situation" is even more silly. Google isn't TAKING anything from you by locking the account, they are simply destroying what should be one of many COPIES of your data.
  - Mithaldu 10y ago
    Sorry, but you misread that, the housing situation comes into play by way of gmail also being a mailing receipt address and key for many locks.
    - tw04 10y ago
      This would be the equivalent of you putting your key in a mailbox on the corner that you don't own, free of use, with no guarantees around it being there at any point in time. One day you go to grab your key and it's gone. Who's at fault? Google LITERALLY tells you in the TOS that you both don't own any content served up by their platform, and that they may suspend you at any time they choose. >We may suspend or stop providing our Services to you if you do not comply with our terms or policies or if we are investigating suspected misconduct. >Using our Services does not give you ownership of any intellectual property rights in our Services or the content you access. If that's where you're storing your "key" - you should probably re-evaluate your personal storage policies.

candiodari 10y ago

Presumably the argument would be "because otherwise the landlord accepts legal responsibility". Which means that if your apartment burns down with 3 guests in it he not only is not covered by fire insurance (that contractually puts occupancy limits because of legal demands on them), but actually has to pay for the ambulance and medical costs because "he created an unsafe situation". So "why would people complain" ... it's a matter of perspective and maybe ideology. I would say the other reaction is easier : make sure you have 5 google accounts. One is email and you DO NOT use it for anything even remotely business related.