The top comment on the article is worth reading. I’m copying it here. James K. Lowden (Camden, Maine) writes: It’s not just privacy, not just the internet, an

The top comment on the article is worth reading. I’m copying it here. James K. Lowden (Camden, Maine) writes: It’s not just privacy, not just the internet, and not because of the internet. It’s corporate power. Some of us remember when getting a phone or credit card didn’t entail 13 pages of fine print. There was nothing to agree to. Both parties reserved all rights under the law. Let’s note that the contracts we supposedly sign never grant us additional rights. They’re entirely one-sided: you agree to thus-and-such for the privilege of using what you paid for. I learned in Business Law 101 that valid contracts had to be entered voluntarily and had to include consideration: something of value from both parties had to be at stake. “Shrink-wrap” contracts on software didn’t meet that basic standard, but have been upheld nonetheless. The law should state: there can be no “terms of sale” agreement for any retail purpose. No waivers for renting a moped or a car, no terms on software or websites, no contract for a phone or bank account. The firm must comply with the law, an the consumer reserves all rights under the law, full stop. Anything less is involuntary on its face. The corporate lawyers draft an “agreement” worth millions to the firm but in absolute terms that same stake is divided amongst millions of customers, none of which has enough at stake to hire a lawyer (pretending the terms were negotiable). The very fact the terms cannot be modified is prima facia evidence of coercion. https://nyti.ms/2DSfq4B#permid=30447668 https://nyti.ms/2DSfq4B#permid=30447668