149
ToS not comprehensible by the general public shouldn't be enforcable. They should be forced to have a simplified part and a jurist part.
this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2024
149 points (99.3% liked)
Privacy
31913 readers
491 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
Chat rooms
-
[Matrix/Element]Dead
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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”
Hear,hear. Sounds like an excellent use case for a (trained, open, RAG) LLM.
This is already done in other areas. In many places each bank offering has a single digit risk score. It's based on your exposure and how volatile the instruments it's investing in are. Savings account will be 1, stock market closer to 10. You're signing really complex contract with the bank but the risk can be objectively verified. Same could be done for ToS.
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.
Also from them is https://themarkup.org/blacklight
Enter a website address and see trackers before you visit it.
‘s a long read. Here’s the intro blurb:
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 By Jon Keegan and Jesse Woo
Gonna dive in and see what nuggets of wisdom they offer.
Cool- if you have time, can you distill it down for us into a few bullet points?
The article has a '👀' emoji before important parts, which shortens it somewhat. (I fully read everything)
PP as it should be, like the one from Andisearch, which everybody can understand
We promise not to share your data with anyone else.
We only collect and retain sufficient data to help our customers use the service effectively, when they want to create an account or be remembered between devices and sessions, and to improve the service we provide.
No data is shared with any other person or company, and personal information is not available to our team members beyond that directly required for customer support and service.
What we do to try to protect you There is a limit to what we can do while still providing links to external websites and displaying content. But while you're searching, we do our best to try to shield our users from the worst intrusive aspects of the Web.
We don't store any cookies.
We block Google's FLoC (Federated Learning of Cohorts) tracking technology from this app.
We don't log or store your IP address. It's used to lookup your approximate location (nearest town) for location searches only, then discarded. It is never passed to third-parties.
We only use your GPS or detailed location for searches with your express permission, and then only to approximate the area. Your GPS location details are not stored or passed to any third-parties.
Searches are anonymous and private to you. We don't log searches.
We only use analytics within our service to improve it for our users.
We block referrers on external links and use "nofollow noopener noreferrer" to protect you.
We do not share any customer data with any third parties.
We collect only the data needed to provide the service.
We don't use any off-site or third-party user tracking. There is no ad tracking such as Facebook's or analytics platforms like Google Analytics.
No advertising display or advertising tracking.
We use randomized proxies to retrieve content for preview and reader mode.
We use https encryption everywhere including for external links wherever available.
We proxy images and try to strip third-party cookies from any reader content as much as possible.
We display embedded videos and content for our customer's convenience (so you can play a YouTube video in chat), but they are in a sandbox to help protect you, and restricted to only major reputable web services (like YouTube or Spotify). An embedded video might have cookies outside of our control.
Or this from SSuite, the whole PP (and it isn't even OpenSource)
Van Loo Software does not rent, sell, collect, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to provide free software or services you've requested.
And that's guaranteed!
-All our software is licensed as proprietary freeware.
- No third-party add-ons, toolbars, installers, or software distributions allowed.
- We are the foremost provider of free quality office software on the internet today.
- We are solely supported by donations from our generous and kind software users.
If a company had nothing to hide, there isn't a need of long legal texts wich nobody can understand.