5 ms·

> these terms and conditions are typically extremely permissive T&C are dark, twisty forests of legalese that can shift, seemingly at any time. As a consumer,

by teeray 2y ago

> these terms and conditions are typically extremely permissive T&C are dark, twisty forests of legalese that can shift, seemingly at any time. As a consumer, if you want to do something as simple as pay to park your car, you need to sign the T&C in blood or you get towed. Is it really an agreement if you must agree to it for basic necessities?

JohnFen 2y ago
Yes, I totally agree. The T&C situation is dire and need to be addressed. For instance, the idea that you engaged in anything remotely like "consent" because of vague generalities in T&C documents is laughable on its face. That said, it's the legal framework we have to deal with in the now.
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  How do you propose to address it such that end result is a net positive, instead of net negative?
  - jerf 2y ago
    Common law nominally already has some principles built into it that can answer that in a reasonable way. Contracts that are super lopsided are already nominally invalid. Contracts that are incomprehensible and signed under duress are already nominally invalid. As you may guess from my phrasing, I am well aware that in the present environment, believing that that meant much would be a childish level of naivety. But the principles can still be used to answer your questions in a reasonable way. It really wouldn't be that hard to lay down some principles that privacy violations are an expense above and beyond, say, "parking my car". It is unreasonable for a person to think that the price of parking my car is $1.25 an hour and also arbitrary privacy violations and also you gave up your right to privacy from the government and also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them (see recent Disney wrongful death case). $1.25/hour was already a fair price, give or take a couple of multiplicative factors. Taking a whole whackload of additional rights in the fine print under what can reasonably be called duress relative to the claims being made, beyond what a "reasonable person" would expect to be necessary to just complete the basic transaction, is not that hard to write some principles around. This is why judges are still human.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them (see recent Disney wrongful death case). It's worth mentioning that in that case, Disney didn't operate the restaurant that allegedly caused the wrongful death, but got included in the suit because they had a website listing for that restaurant. In that case I think it's pretty reasonable that if Disney can be put on the hook for having a listing for a restaurant that caused the wrongful death, that they can be let off the hook for having a waiver in their website T&C.
    - gs17 2y ago
      > and also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them If only they stopped there. After you've parked, you go in to some random activity and sign a liability waiver that, as written, says if the janitor's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate murders any member of the same species as you at some point in the future, whoever relevant will have to simply ignore the inconvenience because you once went into an escape room. Of course the extreme interpretation could never hold up in court, but it's absurd that I've even seen so many places that explicitly try to waive gross negligence in places where it's long been established to not be possible (or even places where it invalidates the entire clause!). These are sometimes justified as scaring people from lawsuits even if they don't provide and real protection, but why are we putting up with that?
  - worik 2y ago
    > How do you propose to address it [terms & conditions]such that end result is a net positive, instead of net negative? * limit scope. It should not be possible to get people to sign away rights they have in order to e.g. stream a movie * plain English. * compulsory summary at the start * more statutory rights that cannot be wived. E.g. it is not legal to have death a result of non compliance It is not that hard.
  - dataflow 2y ago
    How about: any terms that can be reasonably expected to be surprising to -- and negatively affect -- a reasonable person under its scope are unenforceable without the consent of all of those people. (This is intended to be phrased on a way that includes e.g. cases where one party agrees to terms but another one is affects by it to their surprise, like your spouse when you buy a cell phone plan. So rephrase as needed.)
    - MichaelZuo 2y ago
      That’s what judges already do when deciding cases…?
      - dataflow 2y ago
        I don't believe so?
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I’m pretty sure Judges consider whether such terms are within certain bounds of reason… they can be expected to annul terms such as ‘the customer has to offer their first born son as a sacrifice’ or ‘the customer has to pay a billion dollars in compensation’, etc...
        dataflow 2y ago
        Those are just unconscionable terms, not merely unexpected ones.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        And who would be the authority deciding on the definition of those two terms, if not judges? Clearly HN users cannot posses that authority without a fairly significant rank.
        dataflow 2y ago
- balderdash 2y ago
  I’ve always wondered if you could turn the tables on some of these people, perhaps by sending an email with t&c’s your own after they’ve sent you an email, the body of which would essentially invalidate their T&C’s and that by them continuing to send you emails they are consenting to the revised T&C’s…
  - dml2135 2y ago
    "This one weird trick" doesn't work because it the end, it comes down to who has more money to spend on lawyers.
gruez 2y ago
>Is it really an agreement if you must agree to it for basic necessities? The article says the article says the location data was "harvested from ordinary apps installed on phones". What type of "basic necessities" are you getting from apps on your phone that have location access? I'm guessing it's from random weather apps, rather than something "basic necessities".
- exe34 2y ago
  who needs to check the weather before going outside or making plans, right? that's just a luxury.
  - RiverCrochet 2y ago
    My boomer cousin just said, "Yeah, they invented this really cool thing for that called a window." I just updated my will to remove his name from it.
    - recursive 2y ago
      But you probably still look out the window though.
    - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
      I don't think your money means as much to someone less dependent on macro-complexity. He based-ness and your bias-ness are on display.
    - exe34 2y ago
      yep, a properly configured window will tell you about flood risks and lighting strikes several hours ahead of time!
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    You in fact do not need to check the weather forecast to do those things. People went outside and made plans just fine before we had the weather on TV, much less on a computer.

by teeray 2y ago

JohnFen 2y ago

Yes, I totally agree. The T&C situation is dire and need to be addressed. For instance, the idea that you engaged in anything remotely like "consent" because of vague generalities in T&C documents is laughable on its face. That said, it's the legal framework we have to deal with in the now.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
How do you propose to address it such that end result is a net positive, instead of net negative?
- jerf 2y ago
  Common law nominally already has some principles built into it that can answer that in a reasonable way. Contracts that are super lopsided are already nominally invalid. Contracts that are incomprehensible and signed under duress are already nominally invalid. As you may guess from my phrasing, I am well aware that in the present environment, believing that that meant much would be a childish level of naivety. But the principles can still be used to answer your questions in a reasonable way. It really wouldn't be that hard to lay down some principles that privacy violations are an expense above and beyond, say, "parking my car". It is unreasonable for a person to think that the price of parking my car is $1.25 an hour and also arbitrary privacy violations and also you gave up your right to privacy from the government and also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them (see recent Disney wrongful death case). $1.25/hour was already a fair price, give or take a couple of multiplicative factors. Taking a whole whackload of additional rights in the fine print under what can reasonably be called duress relative to the claims being made, beyond what a "reasonable person" would expect to be necessary to just complete the basic transaction, is not that hard to write some principles around. This is why judges are still human.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them (see recent Disney wrongful death case). It's worth mentioning that in that case, Disney didn't operate the restaurant that allegedly caused the wrongful death, but got included in the suit because they had a website listing for that restaurant. In that case I think it's pretty reasonable that if Disney can be put on the hook for having a listing for a restaurant that caused the wrongful death, that they can be let off the hook for having a waiver in their website T&C.
  - gs17 2y ago
    > and also in six years if you sue a related entity they'll cite your parking agreement as the reason why you're not allowed to sue them If only they stopped there. After you've parked, you go in to some random activity and sign a liability waiver that, as written, says if the janitor's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate murders any member of the same species as you at some point in the future, whoever relevant will have to simply ignore the inconvenience because you once went into an escape room. Of course the extreme interpretation could never hold up in court, but it's absurd that I've even seen so many places that explicitly try to waive gross negligence in places where it's long been established to not be possible (or even places where it invalidates the entire clause!). These are sometimes justified as scaring people from lawsuits even if they don't provide and real protection, but why are we putting up with that?
- worik 2y ago
  > How do you propose to address it [terms & conditions]such that end result is a net positive, instead of net negative? * limit scope. It should not be possible to get people to sign away rights they have in order to e.g. stream a movie * plain English. * compulsory summary at the start * more statutory rights that cannot be wived. E.g. it is not legal to have death a result of non compliance It is not that hard.
- dataflow 2y ago
  How about: any terms that can be reasonably expected to be surprising to -- and negatively affect -- a reasonable person under its scope are unenforceable without the consent of all of those people. (This is intended to be phrased on a way that includes e.g. cases where one party agrees to terms but another one is affects by it to their surprise, like your spouse when you buy a cell phone plan. So rephrase as needed.)
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    That’s what judges already do when deciding cases…?
    - dataflow 2y ago
      I don't believe so?
      - MichaelZuo 2y ago
        I’m pretty sure Judges consider whether such terms are within certain bounds of reason… they can be expected to annul terms such as ‘the customer has to offer their first born son as a sacrifice’ or ‘the customer has to pay a billion dollars in compensation’, etc...
        dataflow 2y ago
        Those are just unconscionable terms, not merely unexpected ones.
        MichaelZuo 2y ago
        And who would be the authority deciding on the definition of those two terms, if not judges? Clearly HN users cannot posses that authority without a fairly significant rank.
        dataflow 2y ago
balderdash 2y ago
I’ve always wondered if you could turn the tables on some of these people, perhaps by sending an email with t&c’s your own after they’ve sent you an email, the body of which would essentially invalidate their T&C’s and that by them continuing to send you emails they are consenting to the revised T&C’s…
- dml2135 2y ago
  "This one weird trick" doesn't work because it the end, it comes down to who has more money to spend on lawyers.

gruez 2y ago

>Is it really an agreement if you must agree to it for basic necessities? The article says the article says the location data was "harvested from ordinary apps installed on phones". What type of "basic necessities" are you getting from apps on your phone that have location access? I'm guessing it's from random weather apps, rather than something "basic necessities".

exe34 2y ago
who needs to check the weather before going outside or making plans, right? that's just a luxury.
- RiverCrochet 2y ago
  My boomer cousin just said, "Yeah, they invented this really cool thing for that called a window." I just updated my will to remove his name from it.
  - recursive 2y ago
    But you probably still look out the window though.
  - Jerrrrrrry 2y ago
    I don't think your money means as much to someone less dependent on macro-complexity. He based-ness and your bias-ness are on display.
  - exe34 2y ago
    yep, a properly configured window will tell you about flood risks and lighting strikes several hours ahead of time!
- bigstrat2003 2y ago
  You in fact do not need to check the weather forecast to do those things. People went outside and made plans just fine before we had the weather on TV, much less on a computer.