5 ms·

One straightforward fix: A law that says an "I Agree" button only binds the user to the text that's actually visible on the screen. More text? More buttons! Th

One straightforward fix: A law that says an "I Agree" button only binds the user to the text that's actually visible on the screen. More text? More buttons! That will drastically cut down on the boilerplate. Want to straitjacket your users with 60 pages of user agreement? No problem! You're only 60 button clicks away from complete lack of liability.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
Some people have taller monitors than others. Some browse in different font sizes. There is no way, even in theory, of determining what was visible on screen. edit: really, this is the exact same problem as "some people have taller screens than others", but some people have taller browser windows than others too. If I want to get some text off screen before clicking "I agree", it's fully within my power to do so.
- rossjudson 13y ago
  I have been too successful muting my sarcasm. You are correct! My impractical idea is, indeed, impractical. The point is that when we allow arbitrarily complex language to be buried under a single agreement action, a user has no idea what they are actually agreeing to. And everybody knows it. So we should just make such agreements null and void until the technology community (us) and the lawyers can come up with a way of breaking these user agreements down into digestible, understandable units.
  - knome 13y ago
    Null and void seems extreme to me. These sorts of agreements do serve a perfectly good purpose. While I would not agree that users should be held liable by terms as either criminal or civil infractions of any sort, they certainly work well to advise the user of what services they will be provided, under what circumstances the provider will be justified in removing service, whether or not the customer will be refunded in those situations, etc. As a declaration of intent of service, potentially usable defensively by the company should a user take umbrage against the service, they are excellent. As anything else, they're pretty worthless.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    So we should just make such agreements null and void until the technology community (us) and the lawyers can come up with a way of breaking these user agreements down into digestible, understandable units. Which unfortunately destroys the Internet until that happens. Businesses typically don't enjoy the benefit of the doubt and consumer protection laws that their customers usually do when those customers sign up with a standard form contract where they have little if any power to negotiate. If a business offering a product or service isn't able to define reasonable terms to clarify what the deal is then that business can't transact with customers without accepting an absurd amount of risk or without negotiating individually with each customer at prohibitive cost. When we did the terms for a UK business not so long ago, we were advised that things like hiding potentially unexpected terms away could weaken those terms if we ever tried to enforce them, while if certain terms that are reasonable but not necessarily obvious are emphasized then this can strengthen their enforceability. Also, there are some basic legal standards that any such contract would have to meet, e.g., where consumer protection laws say that certain kinds of term are completely prohibited. This seems a reasonable fundamental policy: whoever is writing the terms can't rely on unreasonable conditions, and if there's something reasonable but possibly unexpected then it's in their interests to draw attention to it explicitly, but assuming they do those things their terms should be expected to stand up in court if necessary.
- pistoriusp 13y ago
  I think you're missing the point and are simply suggesting the colour of which we should paint the bicycle-shed.
- viraptor 13y ago
  > There is no way, even in theory, of determining what was visible on screen. There is - both in theory and in practice. Otherwise you'd get text drawn over other elements instead of scrollbars when you write too much text inside the edit box.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    Doesn't the edit box's display logic run in the browser? If you get a POST request from me, how do you know I sent it through visiting your web page instead of from curl?
    - mcintyre1994 13y ago
      In general, you don't. A common method to ensure it comes from a web page is Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) protection, which you'll probably want to look up if you're interested. In short, it uses a hidden form field sent with the data, and usually duplicated in a cookie. When you submit the form, the hidden field data and the cookie data are compared, if they match it can be assumed you posted via the web page. Sorry if that's not what you were asking, and note there are lots of different ways to do this, that's just one example.
- kelnos 13y ago
  Sure you can. The website author can check DOM properties to see the width and height of a particular element, and change the content (to add breaks and buttons) where appropriate.
gyardley 13y ago
Is this not already common in certain industries? I've seen plenty of video game terms of service that make you scroll to the bottom before the 'accept' button can be clicked, making all the text at least temporarily visible on the screen. (I recall the World of Warcraft client doing this after every single patch update - no idea if it still does. I'm pretty sure every time I update my PS3 I go through this experience, too.) That said, one can scroll rather quickly.
- rickhanlonii 13y ago
  I think what rossjudson means is that you're only accepting what's visibile on the screen at the time of clicking accept. So if you scrolled to the bottom, you would only be responsible for the text visible on the screen at the bottom of the page. I think if the technical details with screen-size and tracking what was indeed visible at the time of acceptance are worked out, that this is a great idea and really would use market forces to naturally shorten TOSs. It has a very Libertarian Paternalism idea about it in that it's not limiting freedom but gives them a Nudge[1] in the more universally beneficial direction. As a user who just wants to click accept and GTFO, this would initially be a burdon as all existing TOSs are aligned with this requirement. I don't want to accept 60 pages just to install WinRar (the trial of course, because I'm still not sold on it's benefits). But as someone concerned with what I'm actually agreeing to, and someone who doesn't have the time to read the TOS for everything I come across, I'm fully behind that and would like to have some words with the lazier side of me about the importance of agreements. As an aside, maybe there could be an article of the law that allows for a legally binding summary of terms which they could use to supplement the full terms. In that case, the user would be bound to the terms of the summary--in reference to the full terms--which were visible on the screen when they accepted. They would still be required to accept the full terms (likely with the same TL;RD scroll and accept). I'm thinking that there's somewhat of a precedent to such summaries: ballots. When you vote on on a resolution at the ballot, you're reading a summary. But that summary has to be legally accurate to the content of the bill. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happi...
  - 13y ago
mpchlets 13y ago
who enforces such laws?
Hemospectrum 13y ago
Can this work as a state law? I could see the EU implementing it as part of its ongoing privacy/transparency efforts, but I doubt the US Congress would be of any help.
tlrobinson 13y ago
I've seen waivers that require you initial every page, so this isn't that crazy of an idea.
vacri 13y ago
I remember installing Windows Something (server 2003? can't recall) and the EULA was presented in a box four lines high, and progressing past that activated the license. I found the EULA later on and it was a 5000-word job. Yes, you were 'expected' to read 5000 words in a box 4 lines high. Sucks to be you if you need to cross-reference.
dinkumthinkum 13y ago
I think it is more problematic of how to prove the user agreed to your TOS. Clicking a button and storing in a database some text is all fine and wonderful but it does not prove in court that when I clicked the "I agree" button (if you can even prove there was even such a button to click) it was in response to the text for which you are taking me to court.
- mchanson 13y ago
  No need to 'prove' it. Just need to make a case it is more likely than not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponde...)

thaumasiotes 13y ago

Some people have taller monitors than others. Some browse in different font sizes. There is no way, even in theory, of determining what was visible on screen. edit: really, this is the exact same problem as "some people have taller screens than others", but some people have taller browser windows than others too. If I want to get some text off screen before clicking "I agree", it's fully within my power to do so.

rossjudson 13y ago
I have been too successful muting my sarcasm. You are correct! My impractical idea is, indeed, impractical. The point is that when we allow arbitrarily complex language to be buried under a single agreement action, a user has no idea what they are actually agreeing to. And everybody knows it. So we should just make such agreements null and void until the technology community (us) and the lawyers can come up with a way of breaking these user agreements down into digestible, understandable units.
- knome 13y ago
  Null and void seems extreme to me. These sorts of agreements do serve a perfectly good purpose. While I would not agree that users should be held liable by terms as either criminal or civil infractions of any sort, they certainly work well to advise the user of what services they will be provided, under what circumstances the provider will be justified in removing service, whether or not the customer will be refunded in those situations, etc. As a declaration of intent of service, potentially usable defensively by the company should a user take umbrage against the service, they are excellent. As anything else, they're pretty worthless.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  So we should just make such agreements null and void until the technology community (us) and the lawyers can come up with a way of breaking these user agreements down into digestible, understandable units. Which unfortunately destroys the Internet until that happens. Businesses typically don't enjoy the benefit of the doubt and consumer protection laws that their customers usually do when those customers sign up with a standard form contract where they have little if any power to negotiate. If a business offering a product or service isn't able to define reasonable terms to clarify what the deal is then that business can't transact with customers without accepting an absurd amount of risk or without negotiating individually with each customer at prohibitive cost. When we did the terms for a UK business not so long ago, we were advised that things like hiding potentially unexpected terms away could weaken those terms if we ever tried to enforce them, while if certain terms that are reasonable but not necessarily obvious are emphasized then this can strengthen their enforceability. Also, there are some basic legal standards that any such contract would have to meet, e.g., where consumer protection laws say that certain kinds of term are completely prohibited. This seems a reasonable fundamental policy: whoever is writing the terms can't rely on unreasonable conditions, and if there's something reasonable but possibly unexpected then it's in their interests to draw attention to it explicitly, but assuming they do those things their terms should be expected to stand up in court if necessary.
pistoriusp 13y ago
I think you're missing the point and are simply suggesting the colour of which we should paint the bicycle-shed.
viraptor 13y ago
> There is no way, even in theory, of determining what was visible on screen. There is - both in theory and in practice. Otherwise you'd get text drawn over other elements instead of scrollbars when you write too much text inside the edit box.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  Doesn't the edit box's display logic run in the browser? If you get a POST request from me, how do you know I sent it through visiting your web page instead of from curl?
  - mcintyre1994 13y ago
    In general, you don't. A common method to ensure it comes from a web page is Cross Site Request Forgery (CSRF) protection, which you'll probably want to look up if you're interested. In short, it uses a hidden form field sent with the data, and usually duplicated in a cookie. When you submit the form, the hidden field data and the cookie data are compared, if they match it can be assumed you posted via the web page. Sorry if that's not what you were asking, and note there are lots of different ways to do this, that's just one example.
kelnos 13y ago
Sure you can. The website author can check DOM properties to see the width and height of a particular element, and change the content (to add breaks and buttons) where appropriate.

gyardley 13y ago

Is this not already common in certain industries? I've seen plenty of video game terms of service that make you scroll to the bottom before the 'accept' button can be clicked, making all the text at least temporarily visible on the screen. (I recall the World of Warcraft client doing this after every single patch update - no idea if it still does. I'm pretty sure every time I update my PS3 I go through this experience, too.) That said, one can scroll rather quickly.

rickhanlonii 13y ago
I think what rossjudson means is that you're only accepting what's visibile on the screen at the time of clicking accept. So if you scrolled to the bottom, you would only be responsible for the text visible on the screen at the bottom of the page. I think if the technical details with screen-size and tracking what was indeed visible at the time of acceptance are worked out, that this is a great idea and really would use market forces to naturally shorten TOSs. It has a very Libertarian Paternalism idea about it in that it's not limiting freedom but gives them a Nudge[1] in the more universally beneficial direction. As a user who just wants to click accept and GTFO, this would initially be a burdon as all existing TOSs are aligned with this requirement. I don't want to accept 60 pages just to install WinRar (the trial of course, because I'm still not sold on it's benefits). But as someone concerned with what I'm actually agreeing to, and someone who doesn't have the time to read the TOS for everything I come across, I'm fully behind that and would like to have some words with the lazier side of me about the importance of agreements. As an aside, maybe there could be an article of the law that allows for a legally binding summary of terms which they could use to supplement the full terms. In that case, the user would be bound to the terms of the summary--in reference to the full terms--which were visible on the screen when they accepted. They would still be required to accept the full terms (likely with the same TL;RD scroll and accept). I'm thinking that there's somewhat of a precedent to such summaries: ballots. When you vote on on a resolution at the ballot, you're reading a summary. But that summary has to be legally accurate to the content of the bill. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happiness/dp/014311526X http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health-Happi...
- 13y ago

mpchlets 13y ago

who enforces such laws?

Hemospectrum 13y ago

Can this work as a state law? I could see the EU implementing it as part of its ongoing privacy/transparency efforts, but I doubt the US Congress would be of any help.

tlrobinson 13y ago

I've seen waivers that require you initial every page, so this isn't that crazy of an idea.

vacri 13y ago

I remember installing Windows Something (server 2003? can't recall) and the EULA was presented in a box four lines high, and progressing past that activated the license. I found the EULA later on and it was a 5000-word job. Yes, you were 'expected' to read 5000 words in a box 4 lines high. Sucks to be you if you need to cross-reference.

dinkumthinkum 13y ago

I think it is more problematic of how to prove the user agreed to your TOS. Clicking a button and storing in a database some text is all fine and wonderful but it does not prove in court that when I clicked the "I agree" button (if you can even prove there was even such a button to click) it was in response to the text for which you are taking me to court.

mchanson 13y ago
No need to 'prove' it. Just need to make a case it is more likely than not (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponde...)