6 ms·

Terms of Service update

77 points by tayeed 13y ago

dingaling 13y ago
> So if you’re asked for your password, think twice and consider whether there might be safer and more secure ways to share the information. Interesting, given the recent hullabaloo around people submitting their Gmail credentials to Linked In for contact-scraping. From some of the technical measures Google outlines as 'unusual activity' it sounds like they might be closing that hole...
TheCraiggers 13y ago
That was actually almost pleasurable to read. If only all services made their TOS updates that easy to read, or that easy to see what has changed.
kylec 13y ago
We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English summary for your convenience. Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?
- eCa 13y ago
  The legalese. (And I agree.)
- pmelendez 13y ago
  I believe the legalese version is the actual one and it offers protection in front a court. As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.
- TheCraiggers 13y ago
  Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;) But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese. I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
  - criley2 13y ago
    TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate". By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.
    - pekk 13y ago
      So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted. Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?
      - criley2 13y ago
        Nice little question, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a lawyer yourself to buy the argument that pages of legalese is "plain english".
        pekk 13y ago
        I think the problem is not legalese but the concept and scope of TOS (at least in US law)
- runako 13y ago
  "Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
  - peterjmag 13y ago
    I really like that analogy.
    - gbog 13y ago
      Yes it is sexy, but it has the smell of a dangerous rhetoric flower. The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output. The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.
  - jforman 13y ago
    "the CPUs won't run it" A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system. The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.
    - abstrakraft 13y ago
      This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case. Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.
    - runako 13y ago
      If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes. The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period. Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.
- grabeh 13y ago
  It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them. This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand. As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though. Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
- humbledrone 13y ago
  Here is the new (November 11) TOS. Reads like plain English to me. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
- aviraldg 13y ago
  They differ in specificity.
crb 13y ago
Diff: https://www.google.com/policies/terms/archive/20120301-20131111/ https://www.google.com/policies/terms/archive/20120301-20131...
- lawn 13y ago
  Thank you! Most interesting bit imo: "If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad." Now the question is where are the settings? I assume it will be allowed by default. Will my choice be respected in the long run?
  - codezero 13y ago
    The link is immediately available under the same text in the actual TOS: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en From: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/ http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/ It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid in my opinion.
    - lawn 13y ago
      Ah I didn't realize this was only for google+? Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?
      - codezero 13y ago
        I don't know. It looks like this is for using ads in social search. Technically they are pushing hard to make YouTube just a subset of Google+ though, so who knows what extent this affects people, but it seems pretty restricted right now. Gotta whittle people down slowly :)
mcescalante 13y ago
I wish other companies would borrow this "format" when they update their ToS. Even providing an easily accessible diff without me doing the work would be helpful. Too many times have I clicked on a ToS update to be directed to the new terms with a short note saying they're being updated on a certain date.
- reustle 13y ago
  If you haven't seen it already, check out http://tosdr.org/ http://tosdr.org/
- joosters 13y ago
  Use the wonderful Docracy Terms of Service Tracker: https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes They provide handy diffs of hundreds of sites' ToS and privacy policies (and you can mail them to add others). You can also get Docracy to mail you when selected sites update their ToS. [EDIT] - hmm, last updated in July, looks like they might have abandoned it :(
  - mcescalante 13y ago
    It seems to have been updated on October 11th... this site definitely will come in handy.
bry 13y ago
You can opt out of Shared Endorsements (mentioned in the new ToS) here: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en
- erenemre 13y ago
  If you don't have a Google+ account, this link forces you to create one. So I can't access these settings and I do not want a G+ account. I'm unsure if they still can use my info on shared endorsements...
  - nl 13y ago
    Endorsements require an action on behalf of the user and therefor require Google+
brisance 13y ago
Where is the option for Google to pay me if they choose to use my image or likeness in "Shared Endorsements"? I can't see why anyone who is even a minor celebrity/blogger whose livelihood depends on being in the public consciousness would want to enable this option. The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".

77 points by tayeed 13y ago

> So if you’re asked for your password, think twice and consider whether there might be safer and more secure ways to share the information. Interesting, given the recent hullabaloo around people submitting their Gmail credentials to Linked In for contact-scraping. From some of the technical measures Google outlines as 'unusual activity' it sounds like they might be closing that hole...

TheCraiggers 13y ago

That was actually almost pleasurable to read. If only all services made their TOS updates that easy to read, or that easy to see what has changed.

kylec 13y ago

We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here. Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English summary for your convenience. Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?

eCa 13y ago
The legalese. (And I agree.)
pmelendez 13y ago
I believe the legalese version is the actual one and it offers protection in front a court. As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.
TheCraiggers 13y ago
Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;) But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese. I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
- criley2 13y ago
  TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate". By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.
  - pekk 13y ago
    So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted. Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?
    - criley2 13y ago
      Nice little question, but that doesn't change the fact that you have to be a lawyer yourself to buy the argument that pages of legalese is "plain english".
      - pekk 13y ago
        I think the problem is not legalese but the concept and scope of TOS (at least in US law)
runako 13y ago
"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.) The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it. Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
- peterjmag 13y ago
  I really like that analogy.
  - gbog 13y ago
    Yes it is sexy, but it has the smell of a dangerous rhetoric flower. The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output. The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.
- jforman 13y ago
  "the CPUs won't run it" A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system. The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.
  - abstrakraft 13y ago
    This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case. Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.
  - runako 13y ago
    If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes. The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period. Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.
grabeh 13y ago
It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them. This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand. As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though. Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
humbledrone 13y ago
Here is the new (November 11) TOS. Reads like plain English to me. http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/ http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
aviraldg 13y ago
They differ in specificity.

crb 13y ago

Diff: https://www.google.com/policies/terms/archive/20120301-20131111/ https://www.google.com/policies/terms/archive/20120301-20131...

lawn 13y ago
Thank you! Most interesting bit imo: "If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad." Now the question is where are the settings? I assume it will be allowed by default. Will my choice be respected in the long run?
- codezero 13y ago
  The link is immediately available under the same text in the actual TOS: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en From: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/ http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/ It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid in my opinion.
  - lawn 13y ago
    Ah I didn't realize this was only for google+? Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?
    - codezero 13y ago
      I don't know. It looks like this is for using ads in social search. Technically they are pushing hard to make YouTube just a subset of Google+ though, so who knows what extent this affects people, but it seems pretty restricted right now. Gotta whittle people down slowly :)

mcescalante 13y ago

I wish other companies would borrow this "format" when they update their ToS. Even providing an easily accessible diff without me doing the work would be helpful. Too many times have I clicked on a ToS update to be directed to the new terms with a short note saying they're being updated on a certain date.

reustle 13y ago
If you haven't seen it already, check out http://tosdr.org/ http://tosdr.org/
joosters 13y ago
Use the wonderful Docracy Terms of Service Tracker: https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes They provide handy diffs of hundreds of sites' ToS and privacy policies (and you can mail them to add others). You can also get Docracy to mail you when selected sites update their ToS. [EDIT] - hmm, last updated in July, looks like they might have abandoned it :(
- mcescalante 13y ago
  It seems to have been updated on October 11th... this site definitely will come in handy.

bry 13y ago

You can opt out of Shared Endorsements (mentioned in the new ToS) here: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en

erenemre 13y ago
If you don't have a Google+ account, this link forces you to create one. So I can't access these settings and I do not want a G+ account. I'm unsure if they still can use my info on shared endorsements...
- nl 13y ago
  Endorsements require an action on behalf of the user and therefor require Google+

brisance 13y ago

Where is the option for Google to pay me if they choose to use my image or likeness in "Shared Endorsements"? I can't see why anyone who is even a minor celebrity/blogger whose livelihood depends on being in the public consciousness would want to enable this option. The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".