Hacker News Reader

Comment by IgorPartola | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

I really like this idea. Now we need to find a well-known consumer advocacy group that can publicize such a standard and start getting some adoption.

It would be really great to have various standards like this for companies to opt into. Then reviews could say "product X is great and it follows the accepted Respected Consumer Rights Agreement."

I think this a good example of how capitalist companies can be reined in without government interference.

It would be good to have a clause stating something along the lines of "Any modifications or addendum to these terms need to be prominently displayed and clearly communicated".

It'd be really great to see Creative Commons-style licenses printed on product boxes.

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.