Hacker News Reader

Comment by flipbrad | Hacker News Reader

Until the reviewing of service clauses become a normal part of product reviews (which it clearly should, in light of the PS3 OtherOS saga and current class action), most consumers simply aren't going to be properly exposed to this info until they've spent their money and things have gone pearshaped, and their only avenues of action are speculative class actions, pointless consumer complaints, and longlasting, potentially harmful boycotts.

Please, if you're ever going to review a device that has internet connectivity and is capable of remote bricking and feature removal, please also review the T&Cs and express your opinion in light of what you find. You wouldn't hold your tongue over substandard hardware, and you'd probably hold back your dollars until a better performing, more reliable machine came out. Be consistent, and consider the device's lexware too; in time, it'll be a feature for the manufacturer to improve, just like all the others.

View on HN

While I do agree with you that T&C should be included in product reviews, there's one thing that worries me: T&C can change easily. Picture a scenario where a manufacturer comes out with a good product and acceptable T&C, gets great reviews and subsequently -- when the consumers are hooked -- starts introducing changes to T&C.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like this can only be mitigated, not solved. I'm getting more and more worried by the ever-increasing degree to which the manufacturers dictate how we can use the products we buy from them.

Let's take it a step further and write a T&C that is written by the consumers. Like GPL, but for T&C and privacy policies. Something like:

* All content generated by the user with the help of the product belongs to the user

* The user is free to take apart, modify, reverse-engineer, etc., the product

* No data is to be sent to any outside network without the user's explicit permission.

* No sensitive data, including but not limited to location data, communications, usage patterns, identifying addresses, personal information is to be stored without the user's explicit permission.

* These terms may not be changed without the user's explicit consent. If the product producer wants to change the terms, and the user does not consent, the old terms stay in effect.

You're basically saying "down with capitalism". There's no way to work within the current system because everything that goes through it is bent towards profit and power. Do you really think companies would adopt such a T&C? Which would take precedence, the T&C or local/state/federal law?

Not at all. Capitalism is still the best we've come up with so far to align individual goals, desires and morals with those of the society as a whole (at least on average).

However, I don't see how this is different than a EULA. Not all the companies would adopt this. In fact most won't; but imagine a company, say a cell phone manufacturer, or a car maker (think Tesla) that says "We are adopting the XYZ T&C and privacy policy because we respect our users. We are committed to making the best products in our industry and do not need to rely on a bunch of legal traps to sell them." Would you buy from a company that does that? I would.

And of course the law takes precedence, just like it does with current T&C. The only thing is that the users are the ones who are originating the T&C, not the companies. That may be a very radical shift for corporate lawyers, but I don't see how this is science fiction otherwise. Just like the GPL, it could operate perfectly within the current system.

No, GP is not saying 'down with capitalism.' They're saying 'down with restrictive terms of service similar in scope to the prevention of the Hush-A-Phone from being used on the Bell System in the 1950s.' Which, well, is pretty much the opposite of 'down with capitalism:'

The restriction from connecting your own devices to the Bell System forestalled the production, sale, and invention of devices such as the answering machine (Bell invented one in 1930, along with magnetic storage - but scrapped the project because they thought it would cause people to use the phone less), fax machine, and so on and so forth. The 1956 ruling against Bell in favor of Hush-A-Phone effectively allowed the invention, sale, and use of foreign attachments to the Bell System.

The restriction of doing what you want with your own console/computer is essentially the same damn thing. We've already fought this war against monopolists in technology; it's sad that we have to do it all over again.