An investigative data journalist and a former tech lawyer teach you how to spot tricks and hidden disclosures within these interminable documents—and even how to claw back some privacy
Incomprehensible/overcomplicated ToS already get declared as void every now and then by a competent court, so they aren’t really enforceable.
They should be forced to have a simplified part and a jurist part.
This will never work. Most of the time they are this complicated to cover any potential loopholes from every angle and point of view.
Offering a simplified version will just lead to some idiot exploiting a loophole that doesn’t exist in the juristic version and once that case goes to court we have the issue of what version counts for the average consumer.
If we preface this by saying only the juristic one is legally binding and you have to read it either way, then the simplified one lost its purpose.
Who is the simplified version even meant for? Pretty much no one reads ToS, the only ones doing so will have some kind of business relations. Be it the ToS of their Software or their supplier, they will need the juristic version either way.
Besides all that, most Software ToS are at least comprehensible if you take a few seconds to think about what you read.
We can have legally binding checkboxes, like a nutrition label
“Does this ToS allow the selling of user data to third parties”
“Does the ToS allow collection of location data”
“Does the ToS allow collection of biometric data”
“…accelerometer data”
“Does the ToS claim ownership of data created by the user, or the users device”
And so on
Yes we’d need an entry for every type of bullshit these EULA’s try to pull, but that’s where we are at.
ToS have a severe conflict of interest wherein the author tries to preemptively fuck over the consumer while hiding that they are trying to do this. We require regulation on companies to protect consumers, and I imagine that solution looks like a standardized and legally binding “nutrition” label.
Until something like that is enforced by the power of the state, ToS are a losing battle for anyone without an army of lawyers and cash to burn.
How are rights “rights” if you can be coerced or tricked into signing them away.
That entire concept is bullshit
“Ok a new law just passed. I need all of you ‘workers’ to sign this document stating I’m allowed to whip you and your vote only counts for 3/5ths of a person”
Kinda defeats the whole point of the laws in the first place.
Aren’t things Negotiable? Could we have a way to Negotiate the terms. That or couldn’t we place a terms within the platform being used that by them transmit data weshared they now agree to our terms. So for outlook put in Signature by transmitting this email on my behalf you agree to the following terms. Kind of use ToS against them a little. Gotta be a way for people to overcome something placed on them that isnt spelled out in very plain english, that there was no real proof they as the individual signed off on it wasn’t a witnessed agreement. They weren’t counciled to seek legal advice etc.
ToS not comprehensible by the general public shouldn’t be enforcable. They should be forced to have a simplified part and a jurist part.
Incomprehensible/overcomplicated ToS already get declared as void every now and then by a competent court, so they aren’t really enforceable.
This will never work. Most of the time they are this complicated to cover any potential loopholes from every angle and point of view.
Offering a simplified version will just lead to some idiot exploiting a loophole that doesn’t exist in the juristic version and once that case goes to court we have the issue of what version counts for the average consumer.
If we preface this by saying only the juristic one is legally binding and you have to read it either way, then the simplified one lost its purpose.
Who is the simplified version even meant for? Pretty much no one reads ToS, the only ones doing so will have some kind of business relations. Be it the ToS of their Software or their supplier, they will need the juristic version either way.
Besides all that, most Software ToS are at least comprehensible if you take a few seconds to think about what you read.
We can have legally binding checkboxes, like a nutrition label
“Does this ToS allow the selling of user data to third parties”
“Does the ToS allow collection of location data”
“Does the ToS allow collection of biometric data”
“…accelerometer data”
“Does the ToS claim ownership of data created by the user, or the users device”
And so on
Yes we’d need an entry for every type of bullshit these EULA’s try to pull, but that’s where we are at.
ToS have a severe conflict of interest wherein the author tries to preemptively fuck over the consumer while hiding that they are trying to do this. We require regulation on companies to protect consumers, and I imagine that solution looks like a standardized and legally binding “nutrition” label.
Until something like that is enforced by the power of the state, ToS are a losing battle for anyone without an army of lawyers and cash to burn.
Hear,hear. Sounds like an excellent use case for a (trained, open, RAG) LLM.
Also “Does the ToS have a binding arbitration agreement”
How are rights “rights” if you can be coerced or tricked into signing them away.
That entire concept is bullshit
“Ok a new law just passed. I need all of you ‘workers’ to sign this document stating I’m allowed to whip you and your vote only counts for 3/5ths of a person”
Kinda defeats the whole point of the laws in the first place.
Right shouldn’t be able to be “waived”
Removed by mod
Aren’t things Negotiable? Could we have a way to Negotiate the terms. That or couldn’t we place a terms within the platform being used that by them transmit data weshared they now agree to our terms. So for outlook put in Signature by transmitting this email on my behalf you agree to the following terms. Kind of use ToS against them a little. Gotta be a way for people to overcome something placed on them that isnt spelled out in very plain english, that there was no real proof they as the individual signed off on it wasn’t a witnessed agreement. They weren’t counciled to seek legal advice etc.