Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Consumer Campaigners Read T&C Of Their Mobile Phone Apps To Prove a Point (bbc.com) 94

Posted by msmash from the absurdly-long-t&c dept.
From a BBC report: Norwegians have spent more than 30 hours reading out terms and conditions from smartphone apps in a campaign by the country's consumer agency. The average Norwegian has 33 apps, the Norwegian Consumer Council says, whose terms and conditions together run longer than the New Testament. To prove the "absurd" length, the council got Norwegians to read each of them out in real time on their website. The reading finished on Wednesday, clocking in at 31:49:11. Some of the world's most popular apps were chosen, including Netflix, YouTube, Facebook, Skype, Instagram and Angry Birds. Finn Myrstad from the Norwegian Consumer Council, said: "The current state of terms and conditions for digital services is bordering on the absurd."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Consumer Campaigners Read T&C Of Their Mobile Phone Apps To Prove a Point More

Consumer Campaigners Read T&C Of Their Mobile Phone Apps To Prove a Point

Comments Filter:
  • attorneys making bank

    • The attorneys make bank for navigating the over 60,000 pages of codified federal statues and regulations, plus the uncodified ones (just the LIST of uncodified laws is 1,400 pages), plus an equal amount of state law. Of course those are just a tiny fraction of the total law. With my eyes closed, I clicked a random bit of the Slashdot Terms & Conditions; this is what came up:

      The Sites may contain links to other web sites operated by third parties, other than affiliates of the Company (âoeLinked Site

  • Terms and conditions are generally obnoxious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 26, 2016 @04:10PM (#52190279)

    Has anyone read Slashdot's T&C [slashdotmedia.com]? There are some onerous things in there, too. It's not exactly short or easy to understand. This is pretty common, unfortunately. And Slashdot is no better.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Here is how a lawyer put it to me.

      Pay your bills or we fuck you over and if we fuck you over well tough.

      That is what most TOS are about.

      • Re:Terms and conditions are generally obnoxious (Score:4, Funny)

        by DaHat ( 247651 ) on Thursday May 26, 2016 @04:46PM (#52190595)

        Most, but you can still have fun with em from time to time if you really don't care about the T&C's.

        I've a few apps on a less than popular app store, each of which have some boiler plate terms which I wrote ages ago, and still to this date gets the occasional happy or angry email about it:

        This license agreement represents a contract, between the author of this program (*author name*), and the user of it (you), that both parties freely enter into for the use of this software (app name).

        By installing and/or using this program you give your consent to this license and thus you agree to the following:

        You will not:

        • Reverse engineer, sell, sublicense, or otherwise misappropriate this program or it's components except where otherwise agreed to between both parties.
        • Use this program in any unlawful manner.

        Furthermore, you agree that:

        • Any allegations of abuse that arise as a result of this program are the sole responsibility of the user of the program and at no time will the author be in any way accountable except where forbidden by law.
        • You are not now, nor have ever been a member of the Communist Party.
        • Your use of this program is strictly voluntary and can, as such, end at any time at the sole or joint decision of you or the author.
        • *author name* is a cool and happening guy.
        • In the event this contract is terminated, your right to use the licensed software is also terminated.
        • All disputes resulting from the interpretation of this agreement shall be settled at the author's whim.
        • You will hold harmless and completely indemnify the author of this program (*author name*) from any civil or criminal liabilities related to the use, possession, transmission or thought about this program.
        • You will not donate to Obama for America, DCCC, DSCC, DNC, Jay Inslee in any way or any fund supporting Democrats running for any office during the 2012 campaign.
        • If any provision or provisions of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable or in conflict with the law of any jurisdiction, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Nethead ( 1563 )

          As a lifelong Democrat I object to the donation line... except for the part about Jay Inslee. I supported McKenna in that one but that was a wonk vs jock vote for me. Never did like Jay even when he was over in the 4th district. The guy is just a jerk.

          McKenna would have been like Gary Locke, decent and fair for the most part.

        • I can agree to those terms, what do I get in return?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by SeaFox ( 739806 )

        Commas.
        Have your heard of them?

      • That, and if you read them carefully you'll also notice they don't actually promise anything at all. The phone company could never actually hook up my DSL and technically be within the terms of the contract.

  • Reading them online for hours is equally stupid. At least it go some attention.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by geek ( 5680 )

      If the T&C for one app took 30 hours I might give a shit. But to make their point they read from 33 apps? I mean lets just read from 100 while we're at it! Lets really make a big fucking impact! Hell, we can even get super dramatic and get Sir Anthony Hopkins to read it. British accents make everything serious.

      • Re:Yes, they are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Calydor ( 739835 ) on Thursday May 26, 2016 @04:39PM (#52190545)

        You are missing the point.

        These are the average 33 apps the average citizen has installed. You need to know ALL OF THEM as they are not perfectly identical, and you need to somehow remember which T&C is connected to which app.

        • Well, I'm sure SOME of the terms are the same from app to app (especially seeing that Google maps, youtube, and gmail are all owned by google). Google Lawyers need to implement subroutines in their TOS language, or some other equivalent. For instance, a standard set of terms that apps could call upon to reference in their own TOS. This would have the effect of:

          Making it quicker to write.
          Making it quicker to read.
          Helping the end user remember what the terms are.
          Making it use up less memory on the device.

          Fo

          • Actually what's needed is a standard set of terms and conditions that apply by default to all applications that everyone agrees is reasonable (consumer and producer) and then only where a developer wants to impose something different should they have to say where they vary from it. This is what happens in other scenarios where the public interact with companies.

            You don't have to read a massive 'terms and conditions' contract when you check into a hotel since there are consumer protection laws about how hot

            • Let me guess, you have never checked into a hotel?

              I have been asked to sign an actual paper contract at a hotel before, I am surprised you haven't.

              It covered stuff like who is responsible for room damage, that you aren't allowed to charge back, and if you do, they can go after you for the money, stuff like that.

          • I don't know why the legal industry hasn't adopted this yet.

            Making it quicker to write.

            This is inimical to the interests of the legal industry. That's why they don't do it.

            Making it quicker to read.

            This is inimical to the interests of the legal industry. That's why they don't do it.

            Helping the end user remember what the terms are.

            This is inimical to the interests of the legal industry. That's why they don't do it.

            Making it use up less memory on the device.

            This is not the legal industry's problem.

        • You are missing the point.

          These are the average 33 apps the average citizen has installed. You need to know ALL OF THEM as they are not perfectly identical, and you need to somehow remember which T&C is connected to which app.

          I summarize all Ts&Cs the same way, so I only have to keep one concept in mind:
          - You the consumer sign away all rights to anything and we the supplier own whatever data comes within grabbing reach of our app. No part of this Ts&Cs can be invalidated even if the great majority of it is illegal horseshit. Sign here:

          If anything is less evil than this, great - if not then I will never be unhappily surprised.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        So would it make you feel better to state that the average T&C takes approximately an hour to read?

    • Agreed. But how else do we get attention on it? I would really like to see limitations as to what is allowed in a T&C. We've reached the point where everything has an arbitration clause, everything I do in an app is likely now owned by the company, and nothing has privacy protections.

      I bet >99% of folks have never read an entire T&C of ANY of the apps they use. Most are pretty unreadable to non-leagal'ese speaking folk.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by michelcolman ( 1208008 )

      Funny how they call it "bordering on the absurd". I think we've gotten well across that border by now.

  • Is that thirty-one hours or thirty-one days?

    • Is that thirty-one hours or thirty-one days?

      Well, the first sentence of the summary does mention it took over 30 hours. 31 days is over 30 hours, sure, but we're all smart people here. Right?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by s.petry ( 762400 )

        Is that thirty-one hours or thirty-one days?

        Well, the first sentence of the summary does mention it took over 30 hours. 31 days is over 30 hours, sure, but we're all smart people here. Right?

        Ha ha! That was funneh! "we're all smart people here." Oh man, that's a good one.

  • Standardized (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    No, it means we need standardized T&C for software, without the ability for vendors to drop onerous changes on us with minimal notice.

    It's time to commodify software to the benefit of users rather than to the benefit of the vendor.

    Make useful software and charge whatever you want, but tricks should be forbidden.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      No, it means we need standardized T&C for software

      Here you go:

      Copyright (c) <year>, <copyright holder>
      All rights reserved.

      Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
      modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
      * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
      notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
      * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above cop

  • If you wouldn't try suing us when we do something not specifically mentioned in specific legal terms then you might get more layman friendly terms.

  • T&C? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    T&C? T&C? Hell, I won't even read TFA. Sometimes I can't be bothered to read the entire TFS. Hell with any T&C.

  • Make that "bordering on the absurd" for cargo pant values of "bordering".

    In the new world, the "explorers" were attempting to trade with the natives, and they offered up an iPhone or Android app "just as soon as we complete a mandatory oral ceremony around the camp fire" they'd be saying "just give us the fucking glass beads already!" long before this obligatory oratory concluded.

    Not so different from today's youth.

  • is there a gold standard EULA that isn't so bad for the user? I envision creating one, and marketing it as a magic icon next to a service's EULA that means the equivalent of "we're not going to totally screw you" that leave the user feeling better about the service. does anyone know of such a thing? a quick search didn't reveal anything

  • If the Terms and Conditions or Terms of Service are too long to read, just reject them and do not use the product. If you refuse to do this then you have earned the abuse that is coming to you.

  • Trust (Score:5, Interesting)

    by captaindomon ( 870655 ) on Thursday May 26, 2016 @04:52PM (#52190643)
    So what is interesting is that 100 years ago, most business was transacted on trust. Shaking someone's hand and trusting them to be honest. Then we got into a lot of legalese. But now we've gone back - there is *so much* legalese around *everything* that we are back to doing business based on trust again. We buy apps from companies that we generally trust. We do business online based on reputations of companies. So the legalese has peaked and now we don't even pay attention to it anymore. It's interesting how we have gone full circle.

  • "Bordering on absurd"? (Score:3)

    by CaptSlaq ( 1491233 ) on Thursday May 26, 2016 @04:59PM (#52190723)
    I hate to be the one to inform you of this, but we passed that landmark 15 years ago between Sony, EA, and Microsoft.
  • “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.
    2 “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of tho

  • We need standard TOS (Score:5, Interesting)

    by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Thursday May 26, 2016 @05:29PM (#52190953) Homepage

    A government agency should right up a generic TOS, with appropriate safeguards for consumer rights as well as for the corporation. Even include a reasonable requirement for arbitration (one that works both ways - they can't sue you if you can't sue them).

    Then we could say that you can only get consent by click if the TOS was approved by the agency. Otherwise, you would need a real, actual ink on paper signature to get consent for TOS.

    Nice compromise - corps can still create bullshit TOS, but they need to get you to sign paper to use that.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jetkust ( 596906 )
      Good idea. And they should have multiple color coded TOCs like terrorism threat levels. Blue means the app does nothing. Red meaning your absolutely crazy if you install this.

    • Nice compromise - corps can still create bullshit TOS, but they need to get you to sign paper to use that.

      I am very much not a lawyer, but I got the impression that a contract is valid only if both parties actually understand the contract.

      Is that true? And if so, doesn't that make EULA's basically unenforceable in most cases because most people aren't lawyers?

    • A government agency should right up a generic TOS, with appropriate safeguards for consumer rights as well as for the corporation. Even include a reasonable requirement for arbitration (one that works both ways - they can't sue you if you can't sue them).

      Then we could say that you can only get consent by click if the TOS was approved by the agency. Otherwise, you would need a real, actual ink on paper signature to get consent for TOS.

      Nice compromise - corps can still create bullshit TOS, but they need to get you to sign paper to use that.

      Arbitration is much better for suppliers than for consumers especially where it protects said suppliers from class action suits.

      • I'm not trying to stick it to the corps. I am trying to set up a fair system where both sides get something. But I will state that my original post did not mention anything about class action suits so I will add that a 'fair' arbitration clause should not prevent class action suits.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ldbapp ( 1316555 )

      This is the right solution. The government should represent the people and be the balance to all the power these corporations have when they make unilateral decisions that affect millions of consumers, while each individual consumer alone has no power to get the corporation to listen to them. The government in this situation is our collective bargaining unit.

      However, our government doesn't work this way. Our government feels the need to represent both the people *and* the corporations. Unfortunately the

  • I have been avoiding any product or web site with long, required TOS for a long time. One of the great things about Free software is that whey it says "BSD" or "GPL" or such, you know what you're getting and that's nice. When my doctor's office wants me to update my symptoms online, I remind them that the terms contained promises I knew I might not keep, so I strongly prefer not to use that site (they're very good about it, fortunately!).

    And I talk to people about it. I was going to comment online on an

  • FTA: "The current state of terms and conditions for digital services is bordering on the absurd."

    No, the state of terms and conditions for all kinds of "intellectual property" passed "absurd" at break-neck speed more than a decade ago. The current state of IP laws and terms is chewing-LSD-infused-magic-mushrooms-while-watching-Eraserhead-and-reading-Kafka-batshit-fucking-crazy. Absurd isn't even a tiny speck in the rear-view mirror.

  • Really, these sorts of "gun to the head" agreements should simply be made unenforceable. No, you can't actually get people to "agree" to handing over a spare kidney to you by slipping that requirement into paragraph 2,532 on page 845 of a 9,000 page document, and companies shouldn't be able to slip other onerous language in there either. The simplest solution is for courts to require actually-informed consent when asked to enforce a contract, and refuse to enforce "click-through" contracts, because those co

  • If you have to sign a contract after you buy a product, then you have the right to return that product. It may not mean much for downloaded software, but returning a product means a lot to hardware distributors, like cell phones themselves and computers and gaming machines. I returned multiple laptops because the Microsoft license was too long and I disagreed with the "Kill switch" option they put in their among other things. I have returned an XBOX because they only let you read 4 or 5 lines of the agreeme

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close