Why the Terms of Service matter

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Oh, puh-leese. We've never been free.

And probably never will be in the sense you are talking about. But there are degrees of freedom, and they matter.

[cjr72]

The Cybersecurity Bill was rejected by the Senate.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by cjr72

The Cybersecurity Bill was rejected by the Senate.

*does the happy dance*

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by cjr72

The Cybersecurity Bill was rejected by the Senate.

If a "yes" vote was a vote FOR the bill, more than half voted FOR. That's really sad.

Interestingly enough, the vote was split pretty much along party lines.

Do these guys EVER cooperate?

oops - is this getting to close to "discussing politics"?

[meeera]

I always lie about my birthdate. Our government formally encourages it:

"* Talk to your child about personal information and why it is special. This sort of information is information that can be used to identify or locate them and where they live, go to school or join in activities.
* Set rules: —make sure your child knows what information they can share or post online and which websites they can visit. Telling a trusted adult before posting any personal information online, including for competition entry is a useful rule.
* Help your child to create screen names or IDs that do not communicate their gender, age, name or location. "

[fjtorres]

Terms of service matter.
You should read through just to see what you are signing away.
People have been known to sneak in all sorts of, ahem, interesting clauses:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/04/...ly-sold-souls/

[taustin]

Originally Posted by teh603

Let me give you a scenario which is more likely to happen: big business requires people to violate the TOS of their social networking sites by giving the employers their passwords as a condition of employment. If the employee ever tries to get a better job or leave for another company, the employer simply calls the cops. After all, the employee is the one who violated the TOS by accepting employment, not the employer for requiring it.

Y'all need to start looking at the CEO behind the curtain, instead of the "evil government" that he wants you to see.

A number of people associated with assorted enforcement bodies (like state labor boards) have made public statements about requiring employees' Facebook credentials. So far, every one has indicated that such a thing is clearly illegal, and some have indicated that they feel it's criminal to even ask, since it is literally demanding that a potential employee commit an illegal act as a condition of employment. That is no different than an employer demanding you steal your current employer's office supplies as a condition of employement, and yes, it is illegal under existing laws.

There has already been one congressional inquiry in to this practice.

Plus, do you really want to work for someone that stupid? Hint: Nobody worth employing does. Employers will find, very very quickly, that they cannot hire people who aren't idiots with that as a condition.

I find your scenario rather unlikely.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by teh603

Let me give you a scenario which is more likely to happen: big business requires people to violate the TOS of their social networking sites by giving the employers their passwords as a condition of employment. If the employee ever tries to get a better job or leave for another company, the employer simply calls the cops. After all, the employee is the one who violated the TOS by accepting employment, not the employer for requiring it.

Y'all need to start looking at the CEO behind the curtain, instead of the "evil government" that he wants you to see.

In that scenario, the employer would be admitting to extortion.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

In that scenario, the employer would be admitting to extortion.

In point of fact, for an employer to make committing a federal felony a condition of employement would trigger RICO statutes. And if the feds decline to prosecute, RICO allows private enforcement, which is to say, you or I (or anybody at all) could file a RICO lawsuit, with potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties, which the private citizen who starts it gets a share of, even if the feds take it over later.

It only takes one person to get the ball rolling.

[Ladyrixx]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Terms of service matter.
You should read through just to see what you are signing away.
People have been known to sneak in all sorts of, ahem, interesting clauses:
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/04/...ly-sold-souls/

I used to walk people through installing software for my company. People would ask if they were supposed to stop and read it. Since a) we were being timed, and b) I'm a smartass, I'd always say it was "Blah, blah, John Deere now owns your soul, the usual..."

[whitearrow]

I'm glad the bill was rejected, but some of the response was a little over the top. The idea that the FBI would be at your door if you breached, I dunno, Facebook's TOS by creating a dummy account to get yourself some extra Farmville gifts or something, is a little bit out there.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

This proposal essentially privatizes law. My making violation of terms of service a criminal matter, rather than a civil matter, it means that the corporation creates law. As it is now, if you violate terms of service, they deny you access, or, if they can prove damages, take you to court. I often won't use my actual birthdate, but something near it. It would be difficuly at best to win a lawsuit. But if it is made a criminal offense, they don't have to show any damages.

It's complicated, though, because sometimes you want law privatized. If I rent a car from Enterprise for 3 days, and instead of returning it I drive to California and keep it, I've committed theft - not by stealing the car in the first place (Enterprise gave it to me, along with the keys and permission to use it), but by exceeding the terms of the contract. I don't think that many people would object if, a year later, I'm caught with the car and charged with theft.

But it's not that simple - if I rent a car for three days and haven't returned it on the fourth, it doesn't seem right to arrest me for theft then, even though I've exceeded the terms of the contract. (And in fact Enterprise won't call the police at that point, although they may try to repossess the car if they can't get in contact with me. And if they did call the police, the police wouldn't do anything at that point either, at least not where I live.)

I'm not sure where the dividing line is between civil and criminal (no one is, really), but it does seem like we want a pretty severe violation of the terms of the contract before something becomes criminal. Something beyond violating *any* provision of the contract.

An a historical note, 500 years ago, at common law, this wasn't a problem because theft required a "trespassory" taking. Meaning that, with a couple of exceptions, if I gave money to you freely, you couldn't be convicted of theft for doing something with it that I didn't authorize. This meant that embezzlement wasn't a crime - if I'm your boss and I gave you £10 to deposit in the bank and you kept it, there's no crime because you gave me the money voluntarily, so it's up to you to get it back with a civil case. (There was an exception in the case of impersonation, but I think that was the only one).

Obviously we don't want to go back to a world where embezzlement and most forms of fraud are legal, but it's interesting to me that after 500 years, we're still not always sure where to draw the civil/criminal distinction wrt certain acts.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

It's complicated, though, because sometimes you want law privatized. If I rent a car from Enterprise for 3 days, and instead of returning it I drive to California and keep it, I've committed theft - not by stealing the car in the first place (Enterprise gave it to me, along with the keys and permission to use it), but by exceeding the terms of the contract. I don't think that many people would object if, a year later, I'm caught with the car and charged with theft.

But it's not that simple - if I rent a car for three days and haven't returned it on the fourth, it doesn't seem right to arrest me for theft then, even though I've exceeded the terms of the contract. (And in fact Enterprise won't call the police at that point, although they may try to repossess the car if they can't get in contact with me. And if they did call the police, the police wouldn't do anything at that point either, at least not where I live.)

I'm not sure where the dividing line is between civil and criminal (no one is, really), but it does seem like we want a pretty severe violation of the terms of the contract before something becomes criminal. Something beyond violating *any* provision of the contract.

An a historical note, 500 years ago, at common law, this wasn't a problem because theft required a "trespassory" taking. Meaning that, with a couple of exceptions, if I gave money to you freely, you couldn't be convicted of theft for doing something with it that I didn't authorize. This meant that embezzlement wasn't a crime - if I'm your boss and I gave you £10 to deposit in the bank and you kept it, there's no crime because you gave me the money voluntarily, so it's up to you to get it back with a civil case. (There was an exception in the case of impersonation, but I think that was the only one).

Obviously we don't want to go back to a world where embezzlement and most forms of fraud are legal, but it's interesting to me that after 500 years, we're still not always sure where to draw the civil/criminal distinction wrt certain acts.

Most of the time the 'reasonable man' rule would apply to legal gray areas. Would a reasonable man consider keeping a rental an extra day theft? No, a reasonable man would not.

As far as keeping it longer, it would depend on circumstances. If you kept it because you had a heart attack and were in the hospital, you wouldn't be liable to criminal penalties. If you took it to another state and sold it, obviously you would.

Intent still matters, thankfully.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Most of the time the 'reasonable man' rule would apply to legal gray areas. Would a reasonable man consider keeping a rental an extra day theft? No, a reasonable man would not.

As far as keeping it longer, it would depend on circumstances. If you kept it because you had a heart attack and were in the hospital, you wouldn't be liable to criminal penalties. If you took it to another state and sold it, obviously you would.

Intent still matters, thankfully.

I suspect that if you carefully read the rental contract, it would spell out pretty clearly what happens and when if you don't return it when you originally said you would. Generally, if it's a few days late, they'll call you and ask if you intend to extend the rental (which they generally don't mind, since it's more money). If you say "No, I'm just keeping the car, so there," yes, they'll call the cops on Day One, and yes, the cops will take an interest (though they may limit it to a follow-up call about the sentencing recommendations for grand theft auto, at first).

Having rented cars many, many, many times, I know that car rental companies have a damned good idea of how to handle such stuff.

(Which is to say, I don't think that's a very good analogy to violation the TOS of a web site, because the contract actually covers the circumstance in question.)

[Kumabjorn]

Post has caused too much animosity.
Not the intention at all.
Deleted