5 ms·

Terms and Conditions, the Graphic Novel

112 points by techbubble 9y ago

H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.
- deathanatos 9y ago
  It's a situation/problem that exists in the real world, and affects the rights of users? Does a blog need a reason to write a post? I feel like the topic is a good one, given that most people don't read the ToS, and if put in comic book form, some of the characters might be saying pretty damning things like, "You give up your constitutional right to a trial by jury by using the service." Most users never see that, and don't know that, yet it affects their rights. Seems like exactly Mozilla (or the EFF's) alley. Add in that most commercial software use proprietary Tos/EULAs/etc., so nothing like the GPL-for-commercial products exists. Compare to a FOSS project, where the license can be summed up as "MIT": I've read the MIT license, and so now I know what the conditions are, from a mere three bytes. Each and every commercial snowflake has a EULA, and each must be read individually. For example, I Googled for Adobe Flash's, because I remember it onerous. If you do this, you get linked to page 87 of a 304 page document.[1] (In fairness, I seem to remember that only getting the relevant bit during install.) [1]: Start http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/flashplayer_usage.html http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/flashplayer_usage.h... ; follow the link that doesn't give you what it claims to link to, search the page until you find http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash_Player_25_0.pdf http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/license... and behold the legalese.
- hashhar 9y ago
  Because Mozilla's goal is to keep the web open and advocate for personal data privacy. This article fits nicely there with the rest of similarly themed articles on the blog.
  - flomo 9y ago
    Aside from the creative exercise, it is a complete dud argument because Mozilla isn't comparing and contrasting with their own licenses and user agreements. I mean, does Mozilla even offer album art downloads? Because I don't even get the beef they have with Jobsman's benign T&C.
H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.
H4CK3RM4N 9y ago
Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.
deathanatos 9y ago
> Carnegie Mellon University estimated the median length of a single online privacy policy, for example, to be 2,514 words. This would take 10 minutes to read. That seems extremely generous. That's a reading rate of 252 WPM through legalese. Wikipedia[1] seems to say that studies say we can only do 180 WPM off a monitor while proofreading, presumably normal prose: > While proofreading materials, people are able to read English at 200 WPM on paper, and 180 WPM on a monitor. I presume legalese will take longer to comprehend. Additionally, that's the privacy policy. We need to also add in the Terms of Service: > the iTunes Terms and Conditions fluctuated in length from 14,000 words to a whopping 23,000 words. At the above reading speed (ignoring the fact that this is legalese) that's 1h 17m to 2h 8m of reading. The legalese will slow you down if you actual seek to comprehend the words in front of your eyes. Two-and-half to three hours of reading? The user will never read the ToS. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute#Reading_and_comprehension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute#Reading_and_c...
Animats 9y ago
Good idea, but pictures are unrelated.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  That's what I'm seeing. It's better if they break the ideas up, try to understand them from a lay perspective, and then build a graphic novel on that. This will likely get nowhere for general population.
  - CaliforniaKarl 9y ago
    I think you may be seeing this as something it's not. This is not a group's attempt at making T&Cs readable or understandable. It's not an EFF thing. This is one guy's answer a challenge he set himself: Terms and Conditions, the text itself, is antithetical to a comic script. So I will make it fit. This, in my opinion, is more art than anything else. It's something where most of the residents of Silicon X (valley, beach, etc.) will see it as something that it is not. For that reason, I don't think Mozilla was the best place for this to be covered. I suggest reading the New York Times' review, from about a month ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/itunes-terms-conditions-comic-book.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/itunes-terms-condit... EDIT: I forgot to note, this isn't intended to be a graphic novel in the mass-market sense. It's a Drawn & Quarterly publication, whose comics are not what you'd normally expect.
username223 9y ago
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/ Any software or web page you use is backed by an inscrutable pile of legalese that you "agreed to" without reading, and may or may not be enforceable.
- hashhar 9y ago
  Compare the length and complexity of any of those links to any other random legal terms on the internet. I found the Firefox Terms of Use much easier to comprehend than Visual Studio, let alone quite a lot shorter.
- cooper12 9y ago
  You know, just because you take part in or benefit from a system, it doesn't mean you can't critique it at all right? It's better that despite having such terms themselves, that Mozilla's blog chose to highlight a comic that addresses the issue. Your alternative of not casting any stone just dooms us to the status quo and nothing will ever change. This silly statement is so common that there are comics like these in response: * http://i.imgur.com/BTr7vwj.png http://i.imgur.com/BTr7vwj.png * http://i.imgur.com/PJgLi7N.jpg http://i.imgur.com/PJgLi7N.jpg
  - throwanem 9y ago
    > You know, just because you take part in or benefit from a system, it doesn't mean you can't critique it at all right? No, but it does mean your critique is necessarily compromised, if not necessarily in a fatal way. Intellectual honesty requires this compromise be addressed, but contempt is a great deal easier.
- a3_nm 9y ago
  > Any software or web page you use is backed by an inscrutable pile of legalese This isn't the case of all software, fortunately. For free software under the GPL, for instance, you don't need to read the GPL or agree with the GPL to use the software. (The GPL is only giving you additional rights, beyond what copyright already permits.) Specifically, I don't think I am "agreeing" to any terms when using Firefox. If you use a Linux-based operating system like Debian and free software, you don't need to agree to much legalese, actually. (OK, this is about terms and conditions, not privacy policies. But privacy policies for free software is about giving additional privacy guarantees -- you are not forced to read it or agree with it.)
zanecodes 9y ago
In my ideal fantasy world, we wouldn't have terms of service; instead, we would be given a structured 'legal code' file, which encodes the terms and conditions as unambiguously as possible. I could add my personal preferences to my local licenseconfig; for instance, I want to own everything created using software on my machine, and I don't want companies to be able to sell my data, regardless of whether it is anonymized. Now when I install software, my license daemon alerts me if that software's legal code might conflict with my preferences, and gives me the option of clarifying my configuration, making an exception, or cancelling the installation.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > we wouldn't have terms of service; instead, we would be given a structured 'legal code' file They're called terms and they're parsed by meat parsers. We call them lawyers and judges. They are more powerful than any computer. The system they've built has been working for hundreds of years. We have lots of people who understand how it works. If you make the contract the code, you just replace lawyers with coders. You'll still have drafting errors [1]. You'll still have things looking like X but really doing Y [2]. And you'll still need somewhere to adjudicate conflicts. The law is fine. Our backlog is in the parsers [3]. Replacing lawyers and judges with AI seems more desirable than some "code is contract" society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-federal-courts-civil-cases-pile-up-1428343746 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-federal-courts-civil-cases-p...
  - zanecodes 9y ago
    Of course, my idea is wildly simplistic and naïve. But wouldn't it be nice? I suppose in a sense, using court cases to set precedent is like implementing a regression test: "We found a bug in this law, next time you hit this edge case, treat it like this."
    - davidgerard 9y ago
GTP 9y ago
Very nice idea! Reading the comic is much better than reding the original terms and conditions document.

112 points by techbubble 9y ago

H4CK3RM4N 9y ago

Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.

deathanatos 9y ago
It's a situation/problem that exists in the real world, and affects the rights of users? Does a blog need a reason to write a post? I feel like the topic is a good one, given that most people don't read the ToS, and if put in comic book form, some of the characters might be saying pretty damning things like, "You give up your constitutional right to a trial by jury by using the service." Most users never see that, and don't know that, yet it affects their rights. Seems like exactly Mozilla (or the EFF's) alley. Add in that most commercial software use proprietary Tos/EULAs/etc., so nothing like the GPL-for-commercial products exists. Compare to a FOSS project, where the license can be summed up as "MIT": I've read the MIT license, and so now I know what the conditions are, from a mere three bytes. Each and every commercial snowflake has a EULA, and each must be read individually. For example, I Googled for Adobe Flash's, because I remember it onerous. If you do this, you get linked to page 87 of a 304 page document.[1] (In fairness, I seem to remember that only getting the relevant bit during install.) [1]: Start http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/flashplayer_usage.html http://www.adobe.com/products/eula/tools/flashplayer_usage.h... ; follow the link that doesn't give you what it claims to link to, search the page until you find http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/licenses-terms/pdf/Flash_Player_25_0.pdf http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/acom/en/legal/license... and behold the legalese.
hashhar 9y ago
Because Mozilla's goal is to keep the web open and advocate for personal data privacy. This article fits nicely there with the rest of similarly themed articles on the blog.
- flomo 9y ago
  Aside from the creative exercise, it is a complete dud argument because Mozilla isn't comparing and contrasting with their own licenses and user agreements. I mean, does Mozilla even offer album art downloads? Because I don't even get the beef they have with Jobsman's benign T&C.

H4CK3RM4N 9y ago

Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.

H4CK3RM4N 9y ago

Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.

deathanatos 9y ago

> Carnegie Mellon University estimated the median length of a single online privacy policy, for example, to be 2,514 words. This would take 10 minutes to read. That seems extremely generous. That's a reading rate of 252 WPM through legalese. Wikipedia[1] seems to say that studies say we can only do 180 WPM off a monitor while proofreading, presumably normal prose: > While proofreading materials, people are able to read English at 200 WPM on paper, and 180 WPM on a monitor. I presume legalese will take longer to comprehend. Additionally, that's the privacy policy. We need to also add in the Terms of Service: > the iTunes Terms and Conditions fluctuated in length from 14,000 words to a whopping 23,000 words. At the above reading speed (ignoring the fact that this is legalese) that's 1h 17m to 2h 8m of reading. The legalese will slow you down if you actual seek to comprehend the words in front of your eyes. Two-and-half to three hours of reading? The user will never read the ToS. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute#Reading_and_comprehension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute#Reading_and_c...

Animats 9y ago

Good idea, but pictures are unrelated.

nickpsecurity 9y ago
That's what I'm seeing. It's better if they break the ideas up, try to understand them from a lay perspective, and then build a graphic novel on that. This will likely get nowhere for general population.
- CaliforniaKarl 9y ago
  I think you may be seeing this as something it's not. This is not a group's attempt at making T&Cs readable or understandable. It's not an EFF thing. This is one guy's answer a challenge he set himself: Terms and Conditions, the text itself, is antithetical to a comic script. So I will make it fit. This, in my opinion, is more art than anything else. It's something where most of the residents of Silicon X (valley, beach, etc.) will see it as something that it is not. For that reason, I don't think Mozilla was the best place for this to be covered. I suggest reading the New York Times' review, from about a month ago: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/itunes-terms-conditions-comic-book.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/itunes-terms-condit... EDIT: I forgot to note, this isn't intended to be a graphic novel in the mass-market sense. It's a Drawn & Quarterly publication, whose comics are not what you'd normally expect.

username223 9y ago

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/ Any software or web page you use is backed by an inscrutable pile of legalese that you "agreed to" without reading, and may or may not be enforceable.

hashhar 9y ago
Compare the length and complexity of any of those links to any other random legal terms on the internet. I found the Firefox Terms of Use much easier to comprehend than Visual Studio, let alone quite a lot shorter.
cooper12 9y ago
You know, just because you take part in or benefit from a system, it doesn't mean you can't critique it at all right? It's better that despite having such terms themselves, that Mozilla's blog chose to highlight a comic that addresses the issue. Your alternative of not casting any stone just dooms us to the status quo and nothing will ever change. This silly statement is so common that there are comics like these in response: * http://i.imgur.com/BTr7vwj.png http://i.imgur.com/BTr7vwj.png * http://i.imgur.com/PJgLi7N.jpg http://i.imgur.com/PJgLi7N.jpg
- throwanem 9y ago
  > You know, just because you take part in or benefit from a system, it doesn't mean you can't critique it at all right? No, but it does mean your critique is necessarily compromised, if not necessarily in a fatal way. Intellectual honesty requires this compromise be addressed, but contempt is a great deal easier.
a3_nm 9y ago
> Any software or web page you use is backed by an inscrutable pile of legalese This isn't the case of all software, fortunately. For free software under the GPL, for instance, you don't need to read the GPL or agree with the GPL to use the software. (The GPL is only giving you additional rights, beyond what copyright already permits.) Specifically, I don't think I am "agreeing" to any terms when using Firefox. If you use a Linux-based operating system like Debian and free software, you don't need to agree to much legalese, actually. (OK, this is about terms and conditions, not privacy policies. But privacy policies for free software is about giving additional privacy guarantees -- you are not forced to read it or agree with it.)

zanecodes 9y ago

In my ideal fantasy world, we wouldn't have terms of service; instead, we would be given a structured 'legal code' file, which encodes the terms and conditions as unambiguously as possible. I could add my personal preferences to my local licenseconfig; for instance, I want to own everything created using software on my machine, and I don't want companies to be able to sell my data, regardless of whether it is anonymized. Now when I install software, my license daemon alerts me if that software's legal code might conflict with my preferences, and gives me the option of clarifying my configuration, making an exception, or cancelling the installation.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> we wouldn't have terms of service; instead, we would be given a structured 'legal code' file They're called terms and they're parsed by meat parsers. We call them lawyers and judges. They are more powerful than any computer. The system they've built has been working for hundreds of years. We have lots of people who understand how it works. If you make the contract the code, you just replace lawyers with coders. You'll still have drafting errors [1]. You'll still have things looking like X but really doing Y [2]. And you'll still need somewhere to adjudicate conflicts. The law is fine. Our backlog is in the parsers [3]. Replacing lawyers and judges with AI seems more desirable than some "code is contract" society. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organ... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-federal-courts-civil-cases-pile-up-1428343746 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-federal-courts-civil-cases-p...
- zanecodes 9y ago
  Of course, my idea is wildly simplistic and naïve. But wouldn't it be nice? I suppose in a sense, using court cases to set precedent is like implementing a regression test: "We found a bug in this law, next time you hit this edge case, treat it like this."
  - davidgerard 9y ago

GTP 9y ago

Very nice idea! Reading the comic is much better than reding the original terms and conditions document.