Hacker News Reader

Comment by __david__ | Hacker News Reader

I'll one up this. I recently went to Kaiser for a procedure and they handed me the signature thing and said, "you need your signature to indicate that you've checked-in". So I signed it. As the final part of check-in they handed me a stack of papers and said, "here's what you signed!"

I was stunned because they never gave any indication that the signature was for some sort of contract/legal form! Perhaps I should have suspected, but it still seemed really underhanded… If they had, I would have insisted on reading it first. Luckily, reading it afterward it was something I would have signed anyway, but come on!

View on HN

I can’t speak for the US legal system but in the UK that would instantly void the contract. You have to be aware of what you’re signing.

This is also the case in US. Contract formation requires that the signing party has an opportunity to read the contract. If the contract is subject to litigation and the signing party can show they did not have an opportunity to read it, the contract will be thrown out. It is especially frowned upon to misrepresent the contract ("Don't worry, it's just some routine boilerplate") and not provide a copy before the person signs it.

I can’t wait until high res 24/7 lifelogging of audio and video is common so that these sorts of things are documented regularly.

Not sure why you're downvoted. It probably has to do with the implication that it might be a government or a private company that is doing the logging, but that doesn't need to be the case. We could develop a culture where we record everything around us and store the recording on our own devices, accessible only by us.

There was an early Black Mirror episode exploring exactly this scenario. The social consequences are frightening.

That episode was good, but the book/film The Circle I think covered this type of scenario better (even if the movie adaptation did leave a little to be desired)

the lifelogging will probably have a EULA that prevents everyone from using any audio or video in a legal dispute

I don't understand the EULA part. Are you saying that if a company sells eyeglasses with 24/7 audio and video recording to an microSD card, then that company would have an interest in adding a EULA that prevents using their own devices in a court case against someone else? Or are you saying that a hospital would have an EULA that prevents one from using any recording one might coincidentally hold of interactions with them in a court case?

The company won't be selling a 24/7 microSD recorder, it'll be selling a 24/7 cloud recorder, for the usual bullshit reasons that are ostensibly about convenience, but in reality are about securing recurring revenue. Since you won't be using a product but a service, there will be an EULA, and the company may not want their data (at this point it isn't your data anymore) trawled in random court cases.

I don't think an EULA will override a warrant or subpoena.

Might not, but EULA may stipulate that breaking it will cause termination of account and deletion of your data. It would be similar to forced arbitration clause, as far as I understand them - i.e. it's not that you can't sue the company, it's that you'd better not, if you want to retain your account.

In the US you may be correct, but there is other places on earth where this sort of corporate behaviour is not okay.

That's good for the other places (and I'm happy to live in one), but here we're talking strictly about the United States, as the article pertains to US federal government matters.

But they won't show the EULA until after I've agreed with it, so it'll be invalid!

Deepfakes.

That sounds like a textbook case of trading away privacy to get security. No thanks.

How do you show that they didn't tell you?

This could be why "serious contracts" have a place on each page for you to initial.

You swear to it in writing or in the witness box.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com