To me, this kind of crap is asking for the next generation of containerized software. Currently, containers and their ilk are used for web apps (remote to the user). But, a local computer should have this same facility. Apps like Facebook or anything else would be literally sandboxed within their own OS environment without access to anything else on the computer except what they need to function. That way, their EULA is confined to that single container instance and there is no bleed over of user info, except in the course of what accumulates over time for the use of that app.
In other words, if they have the right to exploit us, then we have the right to wall them in.
FB and many other apps aren’t pulling data off your hard drive (although there are a few). They get it by what you put onto FB, and the fact that most of the web sites one visits tell FB about it (and Google, and about a dozen others).
I’m not a FB member, and don’t have any FB apps, but FB has no doubt accumulated an impressive history about me. And there are dozens of less well-known houses that do the same. I think it’s safe to assume that pretty much every aspect of my existence is available for sale (including on some channels, my bank account and credit card numbers).
And frankly, at this point, Google does a better job living my life than I do. (It’s constantly telling me how long it will take to get places 5 minutes before I think of leaving…)
If you use a smart phone or the web, they’ve pretty much got your number unless you are willing to devote serious hours to avoiding their tendrils (in which case, you probably weren’t readily monetizable anyway.)
Although I am curious. If one could pay, say 1% of one’s income to be ad-less and “trackless” (my guess as to the aggregate lost income from monetizing my data and showing me ads), I wonder how many people would take it?
There was a South Park episode where everyone who clicked through Apple’s EULA had agreed to be sewn into a human centipede and Steve Jobs tried to enforce it.
What I’m proposing is some next level shit, to quote one of my favorite bands Die Antwoord.
Under this scheme, we would no longer have the same browsers. We unbrowser the browser. When you want Facebook, you launch facebook in your browser, but it is really, behind the scenes, its own container completely separate from any other tabs. That way there is no interaction between websites. Websites run in their own space. They are totally walled off from your other cookies, settings, anything else cached.
But facebook users want to share their local resources (address book, photo collection, etc) with facebook. Its a service for which they will happily approve access. Providing more isolation between apps will not prevent users just copying the information across.
One of the most appalling terms in most of these “agreements” is the forced, binding arbitration clause. It should be illegal, or at least require an out. It’s not a choice if the only “choice” is to accept binding arbitration or not participate in what is often a mandatory activity.
An alternative that might work is, if a company requires arbitration in their EULA or contract, then the other party gets to pick the arbitrator and the company has to pay for it. At least there would be some semblance of choice and fair play involved.
In business to business dealings, terms and conditions are marked-up and bounced back and forth and agreement eventually reached (usually). This doesn’t work with business to single consumer due to the stark asymmetry of resources between the parties. A wiki-style crowd-edited database of alternative agreements might work. Consumers could pick the best alternate agreement, submit it to the company on a “take-it-or-leave-it…you need my business, but I don’t need you” basis. Some legislation to force companies to force allowance of the submission of alternate agreements would be needed. Who knows, some sort of block-chain system might be useful for consumers to be able to confidently identify and access the agreed best/latest alternate agreement. Just spit-ballin here…
That’s all fine and dandy for folks in Europe, but as usual, we’re fucked here in Amerika. In Europe at least the people there are still considered citizens, in Amerika we’re just consumers to be bought, sold and slapped with lawsuits at the whim of a mega corporation.
Comoanies should be required to fill in a form with standard questions and present the responses as their TOS.
“The user allows the exchange of private information with third parties” yes/no
On a side note, I worked on localization for a global 50 company that was developing a new app. The localization costs were about 10,000.00 for the app.
Then it came the time to translate the TOS for all possible markets: 50,000.00 and dozens of finger swipes in your smartphone.
Section 138
Legal transaction contrary to public policy; usury
(1) A legal transaction which is contrary to public policy is void.
(2) In particular, a legal transaction is void by which a person, by exploiting the predicament, inexperience, lack of sound judgement or considerable weakness of will of another, causes himself or a third party, in exchange for an act of performance, to be promised or granted pecuniary advantages which are clearly disproportionate to the performance.
Given that the worth to FB of data from folk who live in this part of the world is apparently about US$2.54; probably not many. Why offer them multiple orders of magnitude more than you’re worth?
How about giving them US$2 to bugger off, rather than 1%? That might get a few more takers.
Paypal has been cutting off the accounts of users who signed up before they were 18, which violated their 50,000+ word ToS (spread across 21 web-pages!); it doesn’t matter if those users are now well over the age of consent, more than a decade later, their failure to read all those terms is a hanging offense.
I get pretty confused by this whole topic, but how is PayPal’s action horrible? Isn’t canceling the accounts of people who signed up as minors the opposite of exploiting people who didn’t know exactly what they were agreeing to?
Actually, North Americans are apparently worth about $82 each to FB. Much of the developing world is worth almost nil.
But FB isn’t the only taker. If I consider the hundreds of organizations whose content I consume (including this one) who monetize me through ads and selling my data, I don’t think 1% is out of line.
We all like stuff for free, but I try not to pretend that everyone’s efforts are essentially valueless simply because I’m not paying currency for it.
50,000+ words is full novel-length. Demanding that someone to read a full-length novel and understand and agree to every sentence of it during the course of opening an account isn’t reasonable. Never mind that the company, despite all of it’s extensive demands, did not to any due diligence before agreeing to such a complicated agreement and instead just agreed to the relationship and participated for a decade.
In general though, I don’t think any of these things should be considered ‘agreements’ in the first place. When negotiating a contract, there is back-and-forth, a chance for each party to strike out or amend clauses, add or edit, until both parties arrive at a mutually-acceptable agreement. That is not the case with these things, they are just boilerplate ultimatums. Neither party really negotiated and came to an agreement on them. If they (“By clicking this, you agree to ____.”) are enforceable, then by the same logic those ridiculous Facebook posts “By hosting this post on its servers, Facebook agrees to ____.” should be equally enforceable.
It also doesn’t help that these companies reserve the right to change their terms at any time and for any reason, with or without notifying you, and hold you to those new terms, which you never agreed to. Or, as in Paypal’s case, decide to suddenly enforce them 10 years later when they’re no longer even applicable.
I already do this. I have an entirely separate browser which I use for facebook and only facebook. And it doesn’t save cookies. Track my fucking browsing habits now, Zuck.
