SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
[...] One of the most popular online weather services in the United States, the Weather Channel app has been downloaded more than 100 million times and has 45 million active users monthly.
The government said the Weather Company, the business behind the app, unfairly manipulated users into turning on location tracking by implying that the information would be used only to localize weather reports. Yet the company, which is owned by IBM, also used the data for unrelated commercial purposes, like targeted marketing and analysis for hedge funds, according to the lawsuit.
The city’s lawsuit cited an article last month in The New York Times that detailed a sprawling industry of companies that profit from continuously snooping on users’ precise whereabouts. The companies collect location data from smartphone apps to cater to advertisers, stores and investors seeking insights into consumer behavior.
[...] “If the price of getting a weather report is going to be the sacrifice of your most personal information about where you spend your time day and night,” said Michael N. Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney, “you sure as heck ought to be told clearly in advance.”
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 04 2019, @08:56PM (6 children)
I'm not willing to waste time reading 20 plus pages of fine print that I know is almost entirely boilerplate bull, not for something trivial like a weather report. Some choice bull:
1. "You agree not to use our app to break the law." Gosh, if that term wasn't in there, I wouldn't be obliged to obey the law? I suspect the real reason for that one is to fatigue the user, add more bloat to the terms, so they can slip in the real obnoxious crap later.
2. "You are forbidden from reverse engineering our software." Why, uh, no, I'm not forbidden from doing that, and you can't enforce that on me, if I did reverse engineer it and you somehow learned of those efforts and who was behind it.
3. "You are totally on your own, and we accept nothing whatsoever in the way of responsibility if our software fails to work properly, or does anything naughty like leak all your personal info." Oh yeah?
4. "You can't sue us, you have to agree to arbitration." Wonder if that one's ever been tested in court? Moot anyway, in cases in which the value and therefore the potential for damage, is very low.
5. "You do not own a copy of the software, you are only granted a very, very limited license to use it. No you can't sell it, give it away, or otherwise transfer it to a 3rd party" Yeah, because after 5 years, you think your software won't be pirated to the hilt and remade and improved, and will be more valuable than a long ton of gold?
So why should anyone read such malarkey? How often do you read the terms?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by BsAtHome on Friday January 04 2019, @10:23PM (5 children)
You are not willing to read that crap, I fully understand. But if you use the software, then you agree to the terms and are bound by the terms. At least, all those terms that are enforceable.
The "boilerplate", as you call it, is what defines the rules. Yes, it is pedantic, crap to read and hard to understand. Beware that those many words contain many catches and are not always plain copies. Anyhow, those /are/ the rules, whether you like it or not. You /choose/ to ignore them. Then you should not be surprised by the consequences.
And yes, I do read the T&Cs. If I do not like them, then I do not use the software or the service. That has kept me far away from all the cloudy crap and data sucking players, pretending to be "social" or "media". Fuck'm. I want to be in control. Therefore, I choose _not_ to use services like that.
BTW, arbitration has been accepted by the courts in the US. Not all jurisdictions in the world have the same view (just like prohibition to reverse engineering is unenforceable in the EU). YMMV.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @10:43PM (4 children)
Get off your high horse for a sec and realize that maybe you do read it all, YOU don't even know what parts are enforceable. How the hell do you criticize people for clicking through when it isn't even clear what parts are true and what aren't?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Saturday January 05 2019, @12:00AM (3 children)
That is completely besides the point. There is a difference whether I choose to accept rules, even though I might not understand them, or I reject them even though I might not understand them. Either way, it is a choice I have to make.
This all is about choice, not about which parts of an agreement are enforceable. Nobody is forcing you to accept any T&Cs. You can decline. If in doubt, always choose the safe side, just like your parents probably have told you.
If you accept the T&Cs, then you should not complain "Oh my! I did not know... blabla". You got yourself into the mess. That is my point, you make your own choices which have consequences.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 05 2019, @01:56PM (2 children)
"If". It's pretty clear he doesn't accept the T&Cs even while supposedly "accepting" them in a supposedly legal sense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 05 2019, @05:43PM (1 child)
Ok, if we assume that someone accepted the terms and became their bitch despite griping about it...that user is still a bitch. Your argument is of no substance nor merit.
One who reads the EULA or terms and rejects them and further does not agree to them so that the product may be used may henceforth not be called a bitch. That person is worthy of respect, even if all the cool kids are ignorant and get to use the app.
Ignorance is bliss, and it also gets you tracked.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 06 2019, @12:32AM