I'm starting to think nobody reads the things they click "I Agree" to. The terms of the agreement are right there but you can't say you 'didnt know' if you agree to them without reading.
You're just starting to think that? They're massively long, convoluted, legalese documents. It's literally a cultural joke that no-one reads those.
I believe there needs to be a change in how terms and conditions are written - people need bullet points.
By clicking "I Agree", the user (you) agrees that:
1. [COMPANY] can sell your data to third-parties. This data includes [x, y, z]
2. [COMPANY] will retain your data for [X YEARS]
3. [COMPANY] will allow you to delete your data by visiting [WEBSITE]
That sort of thing. People don't read; right, wrong, or indifferent, people don't read. They especially don't read convoluted, exceedingly long terms and conditions that they HAVE to accept to use a product.
> It's literally a cultural joke that no-one reads those
I read every single document I sign my name to, every time. I'm not alone either. I assume we're mostly engineers here, some of us maybe are involved in contractual things, so tell me: in your job do you sign your business's name or your own name as Officer to contracts you haven't read? Now tell me, if work is less important than your personal affairs why on earth would you review the terms for work agreements, but not for yourself? If I agreed to contracts without reading them in a job context, I'd be in the unemployment line so fast the IRS would send me their condolences.
Do I read all work contracts and terms? Of course.
Do I read all contracts in my personal life related to property, finance, or other important things? Of course.
Do I read the 10 pages of EULA every time Angry Birds updates new levels? Absolutely not.
In the context of Apple: When you activate a phone, the salesperson who sets it up (most people in middle america still do go to the store to get their phones activated) literally flashes the screen at you and says something to the effect of, "do you agree? If not, you can't use this phone."
What is your strategy when it comes to updates? Say you hop into your Tesla, see a pending software update and are prompted with a EULA type document. Do spend the next hour reviewing it before accepting? Assuming you are an engineer and not a legal expert, do you consult with a lawyer about ambiguous wording or clauses? How do you repeat this x100 for all of the software embedded in your life?
Most people definitely do not read click-through EULAs in a business context any more than in their ordinary life. When Jira or AWS or whoever send updated policies to businesses on their public plans, almost nobody pays attention. The likelihood of being fired for this behavior surely approaches zero.
And this is where the problem lies. It may be high times to see if EULAs are contracts or not. It would certainly clear some things up really fast. It is not impossible that this case may actually force this clarification.
>It may be high times to see if EULAs are contracts or not.
Abso.fucking.lutely. I believe the state of technology has progressed to the point that EULA are just weasel words. People view them as necessary evils that don't really impact their lives (or, rather, shouldn't) but companies treat them like legal documents.
Because the reality is those "user contracts" have no real value and if you ask me, it's good they are not printed because they would be a waste of paper.
Of course that reality does not suit well companies and they try very hard to create their own bubble world of user contracts.
Proper country laws enforce consumer laws instead based on intent
I am no longer convinced that even that is enough when the relationship is not even close to symmetric. Network effects, psychological manipulation via ads, sunk cost fallacies, bait and switch etc. all mean that companies have so many options to pressure users to agree to terms that they don't really want to. Yes, if everyone acted rationally that wouldn't work. But people are not rational beings. And you certainly don't can't make others whose choices influency you act rationally.
So ultimately when it comes to company-user relationships nothing short of making some rights including privacy inalienable will prevent this shit. That's why we need laws like the GDPR and similar ones in other regions. Because corporations have shown again and again that if there is a profit to be made of abusing users they will find a way to get away with it.
Nobody does, that's why you can claim you didn't know. The law has to respect what most of society would do. Famously, hockey teams were held liable for people getting injured by flying pucks, despite each ticket to the game having an agreement that if bought the ticket you accepted the risk. But nobody reads the back of the ticket. In the end the arena put up nets to catch the pucks.
Um. Yes. Technically yes. And in several different ways too. I do not necessarily want to assume what you intended to write here. Would you care to elaborate a little? I was going to open with a history of law and how certain level of distance of court from the mob's wishes is desirable for a societal reason, but I decided against it since I might be assuming what you were trying to say.
Pragmatically speaking, there really isn't much of a disagree. Sure, you can chose to not buy an Apple device, yet then you'll buy an Android device, with its own ToS.
If you didn't know, you can say you didn't know. You're alluding to the fact that no one cares. Even that's hardly fair, as it's near impossible to get a mobile device at the same usability as iPhone or Android without similar tracking involved.
No it isn't, AOSP is open source (it's right in the name) and there are projects like CalyxOS, GrapheneOS, and LineageOS which make it extremely easy for anyone on HN to get away from having Apple or Google on their mobile devices.
