3 ms·

And I certainly hope you're joking. I also don't personally want to read a terms of service, let alone hire a lawyer to tell me it's consequences for every HTT

by tagrun 8y ago

And I certainly hope you're joking. I also don't personally want to read a terms of service, let alone hire a lawyer to tell me it's consequences for every HTTP request, before it gets shoved down my throat one-sidedly in the form "if you're using this site you agree everything our legal department wrote which gives us the right to trample your rights however we like using all the legal loopholes out there, and sometimes even beyond, and hey we'll also be forcing US laws on you even if you're in a totally independent country while ignoring your hard-earned rights protected by your country's laws", but it's somehow the standard practice. That kind attitude is a serious double standard going on for years, favoring corporations and companies over the rights of individuals. So forgive me when I find it very hard to sympathize with anything you said.

danShumway 8y ago
It's both stupid to attach an implicit TOS to an HTTP request and stupid to attach one to an HTTP response. I want to see us move away from implicit TOS. I don't want to see us go farther down that hole. It's like claiming, "well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I?" You're right, it's a double standard that you're held to more accountability than your local factory. But the correct way to fix that double standard is to go after the factory, not to say, "well heck with it, everybody can dump now." My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair.
- tagrun 8y ago
  > well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I? Yes, that can be one interpretation, but only with intended irony, not literally. But suppose you're saying it literally; you wouldn't because you're living there. And also because regulations will never allow you to, because your local company has your politicians in their pockets and they effectively get a free pass in the form of bills thanks to ~~legitimized bribing~~ lobbying while you'll just be sent to prison. Which is a part of the irony I was trying to point out. > My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair. It's very easy to say such things. Words are cheap. How exactly were you going to keep the river clean toward your ultimate goal, again? By offering your stashed billions on the moon as counter-lobby during next elections? Are you also going give us World Peace and unicorns while you're at it? Or assuming you also know how unrealistic you actually sound, would you just be content by opposing the dissent in favor of the status quo by pretending to take the moral high ground?
  - danShumway 8y ago
    I assume that most people here are trying to make a point with the suggestion, not actually to trying to suggest an action that normal people should take. The fact that it's ridiculous to imagine tying a TOS to an HTTP request is illustrative of the fact that it's ridiculous to tie a TOS to the response. > It's very easy to say such things. How exactly were you going to keep the river toward your ultimate goal, again? Again, I get that you're probably just trying to talk about how broken our current legal system is and how difficult it is to change that. I agree, and I'm probably preaching to the choir when I say this. But if you mean it meant literally, I would say that a good starting point is trying not to one-up the factories with our own pollution. It is very hard to stop factories from dumping toxic waste into the river. It is harder to stop both factories and every one of my neighbors from dumping toxic waste into the river. That's all that I'm getting at. TOS reform is already a very hard problem, and we should avoid making it harder than it already is. I can imagine that it might feel good for someone to say, "if corporations don't want to play fair, then we'll make it so literally every action on the web will require a lawyer," in the same way that it might feel good to say, "if corporations don't care about the environment, we'll see how they feel once we've just burned all the trees." But that would really be cutting off our own noses to spite our collective face.
- wilg 8y ago
  Random idea: HTTP Basic TOS. Just like HTTP Basic Auth, but instead of presenting the user with a login form it presents you with legalese.
comex 8y ago
In the US, at least, so-called “browsewrap” agreements, those that are linked in a website footer and purpose to bind you simply for visiting a site, are legally unenforceable. However, “clickwrap” agreements, where you get a text box with the terms and have to click “agree”, are enforceable – despite the unlikelihood that even a single user read the terms before agreeing. I don’t like either type, but it’s important to distinguish them. You won’t be bound just for receiving an HTTP response, any more than you can bind someone else by sending an HTTP request; there has to be a human in the loop knowingly choosing to agree to something, even if they don’t know what it is they’re agreeing to. That said, I don’t know much about how other countries’ legal systems treat such agreements, but from what I’ve heard, they tend to be equally or more restrictive of them, not less.
- tagrun 8y ago
  > those that are linked in a website footer and purpose to bind you simply for visiting a site, are legally unenforceable. Before going to other countries: are you referring to a very recent local Florida state law (after Vitacost.com, Inc. v. James McCants, found with a quick search), or is there an even newer federal US law? > That said, I don’t know much about how other countries’ legal systems treat such agreements, but from what I’ve heard, they tend to be equally or more restrictive of them, not less. Given no such law existed even in Florida until last year, I'd be more cautious before extrapolating this internationally.
  - comex 8y ago
    I'm a bit confused what you mean. There is no law, but quite a bit of precedent in various U.S. jurisdictions, including from the federal appeals courts of two different circuits, as listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap The Vitacost case you mentioned is not listed there but, looking at the decision, seems to be a straightforward application of two of the precedents (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble and Hubbert v. Dell); it doesn't disagree with them. I did forget one complication when writing my previous post, which is, at least according to the aforementioned Hubbert v. Dell, there are some circumstances where a browse-wrap agreement may be enforceable: > In 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a browse-wrap agreement in Hubbert v. Dell Corp. In this case consumers of Dell products were repeatedly shown the words "All sales are subject to Dell's Term[s] and Conditions of Sale", including a conspicuous hyperlink, over a series of pages. The court found that this repeated exposure and visual effect would put a reasonable person on notice of the "terms and conditions". But that's fairly different from a typical browse-wrap agreement.

by tagrun 8y ago

danShumway 8y ago

It's both stupid to attach an implicit TOS to an HTTP request and stupid to attach one to an HTTP response. I want to see us move away from implicit TOS. I don't want to see us go farther down that hole. It's like claiming, "well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I?" You're right, it's a double standard that you're held to more accountability than your local factory. But the correct way to fix that double standard is to go after the factory, not to say, "well heck with it, everybody can dump now." My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair.

tagrun 8y ago
> well, if my local factory can dump toxic waste in the river, why can't I? Yes, that can be one interpretation, but only with intended irony, not literally. But suppose you're saying it literally; you wouldn't because you're living there. And also because regulations will never allow you to, because your local company has your politicians in their pockets and they effectively get a free pass in the form of bills thanks to ~~legitimized bribing~~ lobbying while you'll just be sent to prison. Which is a part of the irony I was trying to point out. > My ultimate goal is to keep the river clean, not to make things fair. It's very easy to say such things. Words are cheap. How exactly were you going to keep the river clean toward your ultimate goal, again? By offering your stashed billions on the moon as counter-lobby during next elections? Are you also going give us World Peace and unicorns while you're at it? Or assuming you also know how unrealistic you actually sound, would you just be content by opposing the dissent in favor of the status quo by pretending to take the moral high ground?
- danShumway 8y ago
  I assume that most people here are trying to make a point with the suggestion, not actually to trying to suggest an action that normal people should take. The fact that it's ridiculous to imagine tying a TOS to an HTTP request is illustrative of the fact that it's ridiculous to tie a TOS to the response. > It's very easy to say such things. How exactly were you going to keep the river toward your ultimate goal, again? Again, I get that you're probably just trying to talk about how broken our current legal system is and how difficult it is to change that. I agree, and I'm probably preaching to the choir when I say this. But if you mean it meant literally, I would say that a good starting point is trying not to one-up the factories with our own pollution. It is very hard to stop factories from dumping toxic waste into the river. It is harder to stop both factories and every one of my neighbors from dumping toxic waste into the river. That's all that I'm getting at. TOS reform is already a very hard problem, and we should avoid making it harder than it already is. I can imagine that it might feel good for someone to say, "if corporations don't want to play fair, then we'll make it so literally every action on the web will require a lawyer," in the same way that it might feel good to say, "if corporations don't care about the environment, we'll see how they feel once we've just burned all the trees." But that would really be cutting off our own noses to spite our collective face.
wilg 8y ago
Random idea: HTTP Basic TOS. Just like HTTP Basic Auth, but instead of presenting the user with a login form it presents you with legalese.

comex 8y ago

In the US, at least, so-called “browsewrap” agreements, those that are linked in a website footer and purpose to bind you simply for visiting a site, are legally unenforceable. However, “clickwrap” agreements, where you get a text box with the terms and have to click “agree”, are enforceable – despite the unlikelihood that even a single user read the terms before agreeing. I don’t like either type, but it’s important to distinguish them. You won’t be bound just for receiving an HTTP response, any more than you can bind someone else by sending an HTTP request; there has to be a human in the loop knowingly choosing to agree to something, even if they don’t know what it is they’re agreeing to. That said, I don’t know much about how other countries’ legal systems treat such agreements, but from what I’ve heard, they tend to be equally or more restrictive of them, not less.

tagrun 8y ago
> those that are linked in a website footer and purpose to bind you simply for visiting a site, are legally unenforceable. Before going to other countries: are you referring to a very recent local Florida state law (after Vitacost.com, Inc. v. James McCants, found with a quick search), or is there an even newer federal US law? > That said, I don’t know much about how other countries’ legal systems treat such agreements, but from what I’ve heard, they tend to be equally or more restrictive of them, not less. Given no such law existed even in Florida until last year, I'd be more cautious before extrapolating this internationally.
- comex 8y ago
  I'm a bit confused what you mean. There is no law, but quite a bit of precedent in various U.S. jurisdictions, including from the federal appeals courts of two different circuits, as listed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browse_wrap The Vitacost case you mentioned is not listed there but, looking at the decision, seems to be a straightforward application of two of the precedents (Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble and Hubbert v. Dell); it doesn't disagree with them. I did forget one complication when writing my previous post, which is, at least according to the aforementioned Hubbert v. Dell, there are some circumstances where a browse-wrap agreement may be enforceable: > In 2005, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a browse-wrap agreement in Hubbert v. Dell Corp. In this case consumers of Dell products were repeatedly shown the words "All sales are subject to Dell's Term[s] and Conditions of Sale", including a conspicuous hyperlink, over a series of pages. The court found that this repeated exposure and visual effect would put a reasonable person on notice of the "terms and conditions". But that's fairly different from a typical browse-wrap agreement.