I'm not sure I like this. Let's suppose that this does become standard practice. Now we could end up in a situation where users and corporations disagree on t

I'm not sure I like this. Let's suppose that this does become standard practice. Now we could end up in a situation where users and corporations disagree on the wording in the terms of service, or about definitions of terms. As a simple example, let's use Apple's Itunes "software updates" that attempts to push safari onto my machine. Now lets suppose they add into the terms of service that if you use itunes, they can use this updater to add safari without your permission. In legalese it might read something like "add or update installed or new programs onto your device" while in english it may read "Installs software updates automatically." I'm not saying Apple would do something like this, or that this article and company it uses as an example has such intentions - but this is how I would abuse the system if it became widespread, and if I wanted to abuse it. I do think it would be better to have terms of service that users actually read - and in fact, I would assume many terms of service do start of being readable and understandable. However, in the end its about CYA (covering your ass) and for that reason I think it's best to have everything spelled out. Perhaps the summaries would be useful though to draw attention to what is discussed in each section ,as it it in the example provided, so that I know exactly where the privacy information is, I can quickly see where the SLA is, etc.