6 ms·

This really could use more exposure. People who believe that because they only had to click "Accept" they may claim ignorance or stupidity/absurdity of the term

by lmgftp 13y ago

This really could use more exposure. People who believe that because they only had to click "Accept" they may claim ignorance or stupidity/absurdity of the terms the accepted ought to be corrected. It's simply silly to think you may violate the terms of any agreement made, especially when that agreement is necessary to your use of the service (hence "terms" of service). While it is clear that hacker culture embraces putting things from numerous sources together, in this case the Google Maps elevation API with crime data, it's one thing to make a cool presentation and another to make a cool presentation derived from someone else's work against their explicit wishes, expressed in the terms. The use of software implies (by necessity or otherwise) that you wish to make/create/analyze/do-X with the software, and by using it you've accepted the fact that you will do-X, but within the terms. It's a funny world we live in ;)

sillysaurus2 13y ago
If they wish people not use it in that way, then they should make it impossible to use in that way, or ban those people from using it. Those are really the only two options, no matter how much we wish people would be honorable.
mikeash 13y ago
Personally, I think it's silly to think that you may be bound to the terms of an agreement just because you clicked a button that says "Agree", without any of the fundamental attributes of a contract being present, and without even interacting with a representative of the other party in any way.
- reginaldjcooper 13y ago
  I've noticed typically I agree with your views, but on this case we diverge. I think it's reasonable to assume that when the service cannot be accessed before the accessor clicks "agree", and the accessor clicks "agree", that constitutes a valid contractual agreement. It's no more silly than mailing in a credit card application and being bound by those terms. The fundamental attributes are present. There is a contract and you can agree to it or not. Your interaction with the company is viewing the terms the lawyers wrote and agreeing to them or leaving the website.
  - levosmetalo 13y ago
    Do you also agree that a person infected with malware also accepted it just because he clicked "Ok" or "Yes" on some of the dialogs? There is no signature, there is no proof of identity of the signing party (copy of personal ID, witness, ...). Usually no confirmation that other side also accepted it. No copy of ToS received after "accepting". We all know that it could be that, for example, my 4yo child clicked on it when I went to the toilet after reading first few paragraphs of ToS, and now I'm somehow bound to it? Also, it happens very frequently that you "accept" some ToS, and after two years you find on some forum that Google, or PayPal just changed their ToS without sending you the updated copy for acceptance. Sorry, but too many things that are really different between ToS and a real acceptance of a Contract.
    - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
      If you agreed to a ToS by clicking yes, and the ToS allows them to install malware that's a failure on your part to read it. If your child clicks it, you probably have recourse in civil court because a 4-year-old is not able to execute contracts. Most ToS's include a clause that they can change it at any time; you might not be legally bound by the new one, check that with a lawyer. It seems like you are angered that you have to enter into a contract before using software, and you would prefer to just click "accept" and have that magically not be interpreted as you agreeing to the terms. "I'll use it but I don't accept the terms". I'd like that too, but I'm afraid that's not how it works.
      - levosmetalo 13y ago
        No, I just say that the fact that someone clicked accept button on some website is not a proof that I accepted anything. If things worked like that you would not be required to go to the bank to sign a contract and take a loan, one mouse click on bank website would be enough. I could as well write whatever ToS on my homepage with "accept" and "not accept" link with whatever terms, and then wait for Google bot to "accept" my terms. Do you think Google would be bound by their "acceptance" in the same way. It's not like I was using my digital signature or whatever, it's just that someone clicked somewhere. The burden of proof here is on the "vendor" or software provider. They need to prove that I accepted their terms, not the other way round. That's why many free services require credit card, copy of the ID and physical signature as a proof of identity. The fact that Google decided that this might be too expensive for them to enforce, and that is cheaper to just not do it is their choice.

by lmgftp 13y ago

sillysaurus2 13y ago

If they wish people not use it in that way, then they should make it impossible to use in that way, or ban those people from using it. Those are really the only two options, no matter how much we wish people would be honorable.

mikeash 13y ago

Personally, I think it's silly to think that you may be bound to the terms of an agreement just because you clicked a button that says "Agree", without any of the fundamental attributes of a contract being present, and without even interacting with a representative of the other party in any way.

reginaldjcooper 13y ago
I've noticed typically I agree with your views, but on this case we diverge. I think it's reasonable to assume that when the service cannot be accessed before the accessor clicks "agree", and the accessor clicks "agree", that constitutes a valid contractual agreement. It's no more silly than mailing in a credit card application and being bound by those terms. The fundamental attributes are present. There is a contract and you can agree to it or not. Your interaction with the company is viewing the terms the lawyers wrote and agreeing to them or leaving the website.
- levosmetalo 13y ago
  Do you also agree that a person infected with malware also accepted it just because he clicked "Ok" or "Yes" on some of the dialogs? There is no signature, there is no proof of identity of the signing party (copy of personal ID, witness, ...). Usually no confirmation that other side also accepted it. No copy of ToS received after "accepting". We all know that it could be that, for example, my 4yo child clicked on it when I went to the toilet after reading first few paragraphs of ToS, and now I'm somehow bound to it? Also, it happens very frequently that you "accept" some ToS, and after two years you find on some forum that Google, or PayPal just changed their ToS without sending you the updated copy for acceptance. Sorry, but too many things that are really different between ToS and a real acceptance of a Contract.
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    If you agreed to a ToS by clicking yes, and the ToS allows them to install malware that's a failure on your part to read it. If your child clicks it, you probably have recourse in civil court because a 4-year-old is not able to execute contracts. Most ToS's include a clause that they can change it at any time; you might not be legally bound by the new one, check that with a lawyer. It seems like you are angered that you have to enter into a contract before using software, and you would prefer to just click "accept" and have that magically not be interpreted as you agreeing to the terms. "I'll use it but I don't accept the terms". I'd like that too, but I'm afraid that's not how it works.
    - levosmetalo 13y ago
      No, I just say that the fact that someone clicked accept button on some website is not a proof that I accepted anything. If things worked like that you would not be required to go to the bank to sign a contract and take a loan, one mouse click on bank website would be enough. I could as well write whatever ToS on my homepage with "accept" and "not accept" link with whatever terms, and then wait for Google bot to "accept" my terms. Do you think Google would be bound by their "acceptance" in the same way. It's not like I was using my digital signature or whatever, it's just that someone clicked somewhere. The burden of proof here is on the "vendor" or software provider. They need to prove that I accepted their terms, not the other way round. That's why many free services require credit card, copy of the ID and physical signature as a proof of identity. The fact that Google decided that this might be too expensive for them to enforce, and that is cheaper to just not do it is their choice.