Hacker News Reader

Comment by ch4s3 | Hacker News Reader

I should have been a bit more clear. We should ban retention for any purposes where it is not explicitly required for the intended function and clearly agreed to by all parties. Think somethig like strava or asset tracking. You know it stores gps data, and why.

View on HN

There is no such things as "clearly agreed to by all parties" when it comes to end users. Companies provide a one-sided, "take it or leave it" EULA, and if you don't agree to everything in it, you don't use the product. There is no meeting of the minds, there is no negotiation, and there is no actual agreement. It's a rule book dictated by one side.

Then it's not a valid contract and therefore does not absolve them of criminal liability for stalking you.

Contracts of adhesion can be valid contracts. The ability to negotiate or equal bargaining power is not a required element of a contract.

Furthermore, you cannot contract away criminal liability if any exists.

Even attempting to use a contract of adhesion to justify selling GPS location data to a third party should be a criminal act.

Yes, the US is in desperate need of better privacy laws.

You click on “accept terms and conditions” which means you agree to the contact.

You can't just bury literally anything in an EULA. There's a fair amount of case law establishing that EULAs clauses that are surprising or illegal aren't enforceable.

That fact does not change the point of the individual to which you replied. Regardless of whether the clauses in the EULA are 100% legal, some mixture or 100% illegal, the entire EULA is a "one sided rule-book dictated completely by one side". You, the person held to the EULA's rules, do not get to negotiate on the individual points. You simply have a "take it or go away" set of options.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrinkwrap_(contract_law)

when you already pay for the device and a contract, then surprise now that you have skin and flesh in the game, you HAVE TO agree to this EULA or your property is a brick and we keep your money.

that is defined as extortion, but labled as onboarding.

Courts do look poorly upon this -- to have a valid contract of adhesion there is some degree of advanced notice required and ability to reject it.

You're talking about contracts of adhesion and they are overwhelmingly common for B2C agreements. Most red-lining of contracts only happens in high-value B2B transactions where the sums of money involved are enough that it makes sense to bring lawyers into the loop.

If the product has any serious audience / traction, it becomes profitable to scan its EULA for illegal clauses, and sue the company for damages (and maybe extra punishment for breaking the law).

The fact that 100% of its users, except the litigant, skimmed through the EULA and did not notice anything does not relieve the company from the responsibility.

There is the GDPR.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com