4 ms·

All legal because you clicked 'agree' on a mountain of legalese. It's past time voters and consumers engage in some serious collective bargaining as to what man

by deogeo 7y ago

All legal because you clicked 'agree' on a mountain of legalese. It's past time voters and consumers engage in some serious collective bargaining as to what manufacturers are allowed to put in those agreements, and what the products are allowed to do. We've been 'voting with out wallets', isolated and individually, for decades, and things have only been getting worse.

nine_k 7y ago
The problem is that we* voted with our wallets for "neat features" like watching YouTube without attaching to a computer, voice control, and lower prices. Very few actually did and do care about privacy and security implications. It's like buying chips and candy, few care about "nutritional value", and most care about a twist of taste. * "We" figuratively; I don't have a TV for last 20 years, and so do likely a number of readers. Not a large enough number of consumers, though.
- wlesieutre 7y ago
  If you haven’t had a TV in 20 years, TV manufacturers care even less what you think about this tracking. You aren’t going to buy a smart TV, but you weren’t going to buy a dumb one either so they’ve lost no revenue. For now the TV owners (if you can even call it ownership) can work around by not connecting them to the internet (and using an Apple TV or some open source system for streaming), but individual streaming providers on that will still track you, so it’s a small win. And if enough people did that, manufacturers would just stick a cellular modem in to bypass the WiFi network. I don’t see a solution to this short of comprehensive privacy legislation.
  - CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
    You would probably get quite far just abolishing patents and copyright. Seems to me a lot of the stranglehold on the market to get away with all this relies on exclusive control of the tech and the content. With this out of the way I’m pretty sure the cicvil society would come up with acceptable infrastructure pretty quickly.
doctorpangloss 7y ago
Is there a better alternative than discursive agreements with a single yes/no at the end? People have been litigating this for a while, and the best Google and Apple have come up with is prompting you for permission to access your camera. That was a form of collective bargaining, and that was the result, I just don't necessarily believe that a congressperson's staff is going to do a better job than the monopolist platform holder.
- mastazi 7y ago
  > That was a form of collective bargaining How so? AFAIK Apple and Google did not negotiate those solutions with organisations that represents users (such as industry ombudsmen, consumer rights orgs etc), that scenario would qualify as collective bargaining IMO
- caconym_ 7y ago
  > Is there a better alternative than discursive agreements with a single yes/no at the end? T&Cs really just seem like a way to ensure that the company can get away with every abuse of the consumer that's arguably legal. In some cases, e.g. credit bureaus, there isn't really a way to opt out of signing their T&Cs without also opting out of modern society. Without a government that's actually interested in protecting consumers, it's a moot point.
  - troydavis 7y ago
    > credit bureaus, there isn't really a way to opt out of signing their T&Cs without also opting out of modern society. If anyone's curious, here's more detail. Opting out of credit bureaus is actually not possible. One can opt out of pre-screened offers of credit (https://optoutprescreen.com/ https://optoutprescreen.com/, https://simpleoptout.com/#lexis-nexis https://simpleoptout.com/#lexis-nexis), can lock your credit to prevent credit checks, and can opt out of some of data sharing, but financial institutions have safe harbor to release information to credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions to let customers opt out of disclosing "nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.7). That constraint would be fairly reasonable, except that there's giant additional carve-outs (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.14 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.14, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.15). The biggest things that no one can opt out of are "(3) To provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, agencies that are rating you, persons that are assessing your compliance with industry standards, and your attorneys, accountants, and auditors;" and "(i) To a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681et seq.)." This is true even if one has never requested, been extended, or will ever request credit. As you noted, the only way to "opt out" would be to only receive or pay cash for everything and forgo modern society. The root cause is FCRA's overly broad scope. Instead of allowing credit applicants/recipients and credit providers to establish an equilibrium that works for both parties ("Want credit? Okay, opt in to credit reporting from your other vendors and then we'll review your application"), FCRA forcibly opts everyone in. You've probably seen this form before: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/rules/privacy-consumer-financial-information-financial-privacy-rule/privacymodelform_optout.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/rules/privacy-con.... Those FCRA carve-outs are why "Can you limit this sharing?" always says "No" for the top few rows.
tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago
GDPR would likely disagree about a mountain of legalese making it legal.
pianoben 7y ago
Eh, sorry, when you clicked "agree" you agreed to give up your right to collective action in favor of confidential arbitration that is _totally_ more fair than those nasty old courts.

by deogeo 7y ago

nine_k 7y ago

The problem is that we* voted with our wallets for "neat features" like watching YouTube without attaching to a computer, voice control, and lower prices. Very few actually did and do care about privacy and security implications. It's like buying chips and candy, few care about "nutritional value", and most care about a twist of taste. * "We" figuratively; I don't have a TV for last 20 years, and so do likely a number of readers. Not a large enough number of consumers, though.

wlesieutre 7y ago
If you haven’t had a TV in 20 years, TV manufacturers care even less what you think about this tracking. You aren’t going to buy a smart TV, but you weren’t going to buy a dumb one either so they’ve lost no revenue. For now the TV owners (if you can even call it ownership) can work around by not connecting them to the internet (and using an Apple TV or some open source system for streaming), but individual streaming providers on that will still track you, so it’s a small win. And if enough people did that, manufacturers would just stick a cellular modem in to bypass the WiFi network. I don’t see a solution to this short of comprehensive privacy legislation.
- CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
  You would probably get quite far just abolishing patents and copyright. Seems to me a lot of the stranglehold on the market to get away with all this relies on exclusive control of the tech and the content. With this out of the way I’m pretty sure the cicvil society would come up with acceptable infrastructure pretty quickly.

doctorpangloss 7y ago

Is there a better alternative than discursive agreements with a single yes/no at the end? People have been litigating this for a while, and the best Google and Apple have come up with is prompting you for permission to access your camera. That was a form of collective bargaining, and that was the result, I just don't necessarily believe that a congressperson's staff is going to do a better job than the monopolist platform holder.

mastazi 7y ago
> That was a form of collective bargaining How so? AFAIK Apple and Google did not negotiate those solutions with organisations that represents users (such as industry ombudsmen, consumer rights orgs etc), that scenario would qualify as collective bargaining IMO
caconym_ 7y ago
> Is there a better alternative than discursive agreements with a single yes/no at the end? T&Cs really just seem like a way to ensure that the company can get away with every abuse of the consumer that's arguably legal. In some cases, e.g. credit bureaus, there isn't really a way to opt out of signing their T&Cs without also opting out of modern society. Without a government that's actually interested in protecting consumers, it's a moot point.
- troydavis 7y ago
  > credit bureaus, there isn't really a way to opt out of signing their T&Cs without also opting out of modern society. If anyone's curious, here's more detail. Opting out of credit bureaus is actually not possible. One can opt out of pre-screened offers of credit (https://optoutprescreen.com/ https://optoutprescreen.com/, https://simpleoptout.com/#lexis-nexis https://simpleoptout.com/#lexis-nexis), can lock your credit to prevent credit checks, and can opt out of some of data sharing, but financial institutions have safe harbor to release information to credit reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1681). The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act requires financial institutions to let customers opt out of disclosing "nonpublic personal information to a nonaffiliated third party" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.7 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.7). That constraint would be fairly reasonable, except that there's giant additional carve-outs (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.14 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.14, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.15 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/313.15). The biggest things that no one can opt out of are "(3) To provide information to insurance rate advisory organizations, guaranty funds or agencies, agencies that are rating you, persons that are assessing your compliance with industry standards, and your attorneys, accountants, and auditors;" and "(i) To a consumer reporting agency in accordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681et seq.)." This is true even if one has never requested, been extended, or will ever request credit. As you noted, the only way to "opt out" would be to only receive or pay cash for everything and forgo modern society. The root cause is FCRA's overly broad scope. Instead of allowing credit applicants/recipients and credit providers to establish an equilibrium that works for both parties ("Want credit? Okay, opt in to credit reporting from your other vendors and then we'll review your application"), FCRA forcibly opts everyone in. You've probably seen this form before: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/rules/privacy-consumer-financial-information-financial-privacy-rule/privacymodelform_optout.pdf https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/rules/privacy-con.... Those FCRA carve-outs are why "Can you limit this sharing?" always says "No" for the top few rows.

tgsovlerkhgsel 7y ago

GDPR would likely disagree about a mountain of legalese making it legal.

pianoben 7y ago

Eh, sorry, when you clicked "agree" you agreed to give up your right to collective action in favor of confidential arbitration that is _totally_ more fair than those nasty old courts.