Tell HN: Your account can be deleted anytime, for any reason | Hacker News Reader

Tell HN: Your account can be deleted anytime, for any reason

11 pointsLabMechanic24 comments

Be mindful of the terms of service you're under.

Services such as GitHub can delete your account on a whim.

  "GitHub reserves the right to refuse service
  to anyone for any reason at any time."


  https://edit.tosdr.org/points/652

  "Bitwarden has the right to suspend or terminate your access to
   all or any part of the Website at any time, with or without
   cause, with or without notice, effective immediately."

  https://edit.tosdr.org/points/6688

  "However, Apple reserves the right at all times to determine whether
   Content is appropriate and in compliance with this Agreement, and
   may screen, move, refuse, modify and/or remove Content at any time,
   without prior notice and in its sole discretion, if such Content is
   found to be in violation of this Agreement or is
   otherwise objectionable."

  https://edit.tosdr.org/points/851

View on HN

My favorite take on "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is an old Ziggy cartoon, which I can't find, with Ziggy looking at a restaurant sign which reads:

"We reserve the right to serve refuse to anyone"

You will now see that in your mind repeatedly!

> "We reserve the right to serve refuse (i.e., garbage) to anyone"

Could not find it either, but clever indeed! :)

> You will now see that in your mind repeatedly!

That's standard-contract-chatter, not really news? There are legit reasons for this, but the actual execution is not as rough as it's phrased. In most countries you have local laws which will annul those clauses depending on the circumstances. But of course, in worst case you need to sue them for getting your right.

Unless you do something seriously illegal, I would fear accidental deletes more than this. So having backups and fallbacks, is always recommended, even if you trust the company and your behavior.

It might not be "news," but God knows how many people are actually aware of terms containing phrases such as "for any reason at any time" and "without notice".

As I mentioned here, Dropbox's Terms of Service seem reasonable. They give you a heads-up. That's the minimum I expect.

GitHub -> Gitea

Bitwarden -> Vaultwarden

Can't kick yourself off your own services. Well you can, but you can also unban yourself.

I use KeePassXC to manage passwords. Save the encrypted file (Password.kdbx, 3 kB) wherever you want.

Extra points:

For emails, buy a domain like mydomain.com for about $15 a year. This lets you have a stable email address (e.g., johndoe@mydomain.com) no matter which email service you use.

Consider https://njal.la/ or something similar. However, note that:

  1337 has the sole right to at any time amend or supplement
  these Terms. Any such made changes to these Terms will be 
  immediately effective after being posted at the same 
  location as these Terms.

https://edit.tosdr.org/points/24274

So maybe use another service.

I also use Portmaster when I am on Windows.

Forget defending against the government, they have state authority (violence, jail time), you don't.

See: https://riseup.net/

One-time pad (OTP) or "true randomness" (uniform probability distribution) is your only safe option (as long as they cannot time travel), but do it offline. Don't trust computers, see:

  Intel ME explained (intel management engine) from insider
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1seNMSamtxM

Physics is your only safe haven. Seemingly, everything/everybody has to abide by the law of physics. Even your "almighty" state.

> Can't kick yourself off your own services

Well actually...

> Well you can

It brings to mind the convenience dillema. How many custom made note taking apps do we really need? How much % of all use cases must an app solve before we collectively declare a problem "solved"?

Why is this surprising? Should a service be forced to keep accounts running in perpetuity? I think this is pretty standard TOS language applicable to pretty much every service in existence (including those that don't explicitly state it).

I want to get a heads-up before you close my account. It's better to give some notice rather than just suddenly deleting it out of the blue.

> Should a service be forced to keep accounts running in perpetuity?

No, but maybe wait for 3–6 months for inactive accounts before closing them permanently.

I agree with you as far as inactive accounts go, but these TOS terms are typically targeting accounts that are in violation of some rules. Did you experience this or are you worried it might happen? I've usually been notified way in advance if inactivity was going to result in account suspension (only happened once as far as I remember, so not exactly a frequent occurrence).

I have issue with phrases like "for any reason at any time" and "without notice". If I lose my account, I want a clear reason, not just a general "you violated our Terms of Service" without any specifics.

If I am a terrorist, fine, do not notice me, but in all other cases, I expect you to notice me in advance.

For example, Dropbox seems reasonable:

  "If we do so (discontinuing services), we’ll give you reasonable prior notice
   so that you can export Your Stuff from our systems ..."

  "We reserve the right to suspend or terminate your access to the Services with
   notice to you if Dropbox reasonably believes: ..."

   https://www.dropbox.com/terms

All business exists between willing buyer and willing seller.

If you don't like the terms of the service, then don't use it.

Suppose you've paid for content (apps, movies, music, games, or services). If your seller can terminate access at any time and for any reason, are you okay with that?

The 'don't like it, don't buy it' sentiment appears shortsighted, especially considering that both Android and iOS are operated by two major corporations.

Think of banking apps, for example. Banks usually do not favor a tampered OS.

Consider:

  False Sense of Security: A Study on the Effectivity of
  Jailbreak Detection in Banking Apps

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8806743

PS: Yes, you might use another OS, but how would you do your online banking with it? Explain.

Another point to your "don't like it, don't buy it"-argument:

Suppose you buy a device; further suppose the state is not involved (no warranty). Your device breaks down the moment you bought it, and there is no refund. How do you deal with that, especially if you are low income?

>>Suppose you've paid for content (apps, movies, music, games, or services). If your seller can terminate access at any time and for any reason, are you okay with that?

Sure. If those are terms of the sale then those are the terms of the sale. The seller offers terms. The buyer either accepts them or doesn't.

>> Think of banking apps, for example. Banks usually do not favor a tampered OS.

Ok, something of a different case, but sure. Banks offer a service, and decide which platforms to offer it on. Banks have denied customers access to banking to specific clients all the time. Lots of Web sites have died for lack of banking services.

If the seller is not willing then there's no transaction to be made.

>>Suppose you buy a device; further suppose the state is not involved (no warranty). Your device breaks down the moment you bought it, and there is no refund. How do you deal with that, especially if you are low income?

This has happened throughout history forever. It's so common there's a -latin- term for it (buyer beware) Caveat Emptor.

Which is why govt -does- get involved. And why, well, do your research before buying.

Obviously all sorts of industries have all sorts of regulations. Companies take liberties. Govt adds regulations to limit egregious behaviour. But fundamentally the seller offers something, negotiate if you like, or walk away.

Fundamentally you're not -entitled- to anything. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

If you're okay with companies screwing you over, good for you!

I believe online services and digital goods should have regulations. When I pay for something, I want a guarantee. Cancelling my purchase anytime for any reason shouldn't be allowed.

Imagine it's 1998. You buy software on a disc (a game). Now, in today's digital world, it's like I'm taking back your disc without a refund. That's not right. Even if it is just a "license" you are buying, if you have something (proper) physical, you can still use your product.

>> If you're okay with companies screwing you over, good for you!

I'm not. Which is why I choose who I give my money to. Its their choice to do what they do, and my choice nor to buy.

>> I believe online services and digital goods should have regulations.

Cool. Feel free to lobby for, vote for and garner support for regulations.

>> When I pay for something, I want a guarantee.

So do I. Which is why I choose not to do business with those that don't offer one.

>> Imagine it's 1998.

Well, remember for me, not imagine, but OK:)

>> You buy software on a disc (a game). Now, in today's digital world, it's like I'm taking back your disc without a refund.

Probably a bad example since I have lots of game disks from the 90s. The vast majority no longer work (OS reasons, hardware reasons, copy protection reasons). All my floppy disks are dead. I still have a CD Rom reader, but those are rare now too. -some- Windows games work. None of the DOS ones do. None if the Apple ones do.

So probably not a good example. But even then we (mostly) understood the life of those games was limited. The hoops we jumped through, the specialised hardware to run them, IRQs, Config.Sys - and, good times.

Music on cassette tapes? Movies on VHS? All digital stuff is temporary. No amount of regs could have saved that.

Maybe that's the difference. This is not new (to me). It's been this way forever. And if you don't to support companies with bad habits, then just don't give them money.

Its still -your- choice.

I get your point, which boils down to "your money, your choice".

I am trying to bring across that having warranties for digital stuff makes sense, just like we have them for physical products. It's about fairness. Companies shouldn't delete things (especially paid ones) without a good reason; it should be reasonable, not just based on their whim.

The "sole discretion" thing is not fair. It's like saying companies can do whatever they want (e.g., polluting your neighborhood, risking your health). Imagine a world without any rules (like no government, no police). We'd probably go back to "smaller tribes" because surviving alone would be tough. A "big tribe" (i.e., a country) is okay, but a global one is a bit too much to handle. Even the US is divided up into smaller states.

Anyway, all I am arguing for is: there should still be some rules (i.e., warranties) to keep things fair.

It’s important to use email + password login for important sites instead of SSO (google, apple, etc). If google ever locks you out, you will also lose access to any sites which depend on Google SSO login.

if you use email (gmail) + password, you'll lose access anyway.

Yep, that's why I try to avoid SSO except for evaluating services. SSO is useful for purposely locking people out too, e.g. a work account.

Some say just use an email and password, but they can lock you out of your email too!

Some sign ins are worse than others though. I'd rate FB as the riskiest, such extreme false positive rates.

Followed by Google - if you violate TOS on one account, you could be banned on all the others. Plus they have so many services you can violate. At least Meta doesn't ban your FB and Insta at the same time. Both Google and Meta have allegedly nil customer support too.

Because, it's not your account.

Yeah, GH a private entity and company.. what did you expect?

:-/

Is an account "content" for Apple?

Yep.

Keep backups. And make sure to have a Plan B.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com