Hacker News Reader

Comment by castorp | Hacker News Reader

Ages ago I installed a shareware product. And it also had a scrollable "terms and condition" screen (about 2 pages long) when starting it for the first time. When you clicked the "I Agree" button too quickly it would ask you "Do you really agree to the terms you read in only 0.76 seconds?"

View on HN

If there is an acceptance screen anyway, is there a reason not to tie this to actually reading the terms? Please consider the following idea:

The installer presents the end-user license agreement (EULA). Immediately following it, it presents a multiple-choice quiz that asks questions about core parts of the EULA, such as permissible use, cancellation, refunds, jurisdiction/arbitration.

The installer then contains all the files to be installed. They are encrypted with a key that is composed of a hash value of the correct answers to the above quiz.

In this way, you could tie together whether someone reads the EULA with the possibility of performing the installation at all. This, in turn, causes successful installation to act as implicit proof of having read the terms. The order of the values must be randomized to prevent transmission of correct answers by index number only.

Let me try translating this into a different scenario:

You are at home, and want to go shopping.

Your door only lets you out if you correctly answer some questions about the most recent changes in the law of your state.

Are you not a lawyer? Well tough luck, order your groceries trough Amazon then..

“The door refused to open. It said, “Five cents, please.” He searched his pockets. No more coins; nothing. “I’ll pay you tomorrow,” he told the door. Again he tried the knob. Again it remained locked tight. “What I pay you,” he informed it, “is in the nature of a gratuity; I don’t have to pay you.” “I think otherwise,” the door said. “Look in the purchase contract you signed when you bought this conapt.” In his desk drawer he found the contract; since signing it he had found it necessary to refer to the document many times. Sure enough; payment to his door for opening and shutting constituted a mandatory fee. Not a tip. “You discover I’m right,” the door said. It sounded smug. From the drawer beside the sink Joe Chip got a stainless steel knife; with it he began systematically to unscrew the bolt assembly of his apt’s money-gulping door. “I’ll sue you,” the door said as the first screw fell out. Joe Chip said, “I’ve never been sued by a door. But I guess I can live through it.”

― Philip K. Dick, Ubik

The idea behind a checkbox is that it’s an affirmative. You are stating that you did read them. And as long as that checkbox was unchecked when you opened the page, that’s enough.

However, your idea of an installer is novel. The problem is that it adds friction to the install process than would turn many users away.

My favourites are the boxed games that comes with "If you break the seal you agree to our terms that you can read inside the box" style of agreements. Those are ofcourse not valid though so not a problem.

I have seen a few that forced you to at least scroll down before unlocking the accept button or included a thirty second countdown to keep you from clicking through.

The problem is more that every single piece of software and website and such did this and required you actually read it you would get nothing done all day but read agreements. I think the issue is the very need for all these agreements to begin with, we all know almost no one reads them.

I did for a while in the beginning but now its just too much.

That’s indeed a fun implementation. Most of my shareware memories consist of dark patterns and purple gorillas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com