So this isn’t directly Linux related, but I’m just getting so tired of looking at new software and finding that I really do have to read the fine print, especially with stuff originating in the US.
It beggars belief what people are being asked to agree to just in order to use software that is being offered, often for free and often when presented as Open Source. I’m hearing some companies trying to offer up excuses for their legal documentation on the basis of it’s what they have to do … which is b******t.
So … next time you sign up to try something out, maybe a free online service of some kind, take a look at the terms and conditions and in particular the bit about how you will indemnify them against any costs they may incur (specifically legal fees … in the US (!)) under various circumstances. Some relatively / seemingly innocuous like if your account were to be compromised in some way. (i.e. something beyond your control)
I know these are seemingly edge cases that will never happen, however, if this is the case, why include them in the terms and conditions??
I’d love to hear how people fee l about this … am I paranoid, or is a potential open-ended legal bill from a US company, too high-a price to pay just to try out a free on-line service?
… for me, this is yet another reason why centralized services seem to be doomed.
I feel the same way. The process is becoming very insidious. It is quite difficult to interpret Ts&Cs that often go on for many pages of gobbledegook and are very successful at hiding the important bits.
Quite a part from the legal things that you mention is the creeping ownership of one’s personal data that becomes embedded in increasingly complicated T&Cs. Like being obliged since Widows 10 to accept that MS has the right to monitor all one’s keystrokes. Within six months of that, a well-known antivirus company adopted the same condition. So much much for the much-vaunted privacy.
You are right to points out that users really have to read all this stuff and be sure that they can live with the responsibilities.
Mmm, the thing I find most concerning is that by accepting the terms, in some (many?) cases it seems like you’re accepting open-ended unlimited financial liability for things that may well be well beyond your control. Even in the event they are within your control, having to potentially fight a bill for hundreds of thousands of pounds for making a simple mistake doesn’t seem to be a sane exchange for simply trying out a free service.
Earlier today I looked at “Matrix” (https://matrix.org) because it looked like something I’d like to try that claims to be completely free and open. On reading the terms on their site, it seemed anything but. (so I’ve not tried it)
I suspect I might be able to install my own copy and not have to agree to the same terms, however I now worry that I’ll invest time and effort in setting it all up, only to find they want the same agreement. It’s Nuts.
Your assessment is correct in a literal sense, I think, but extrapolating the way things are progressing leads to the absurdity that all s/w users bear all responsibility even for faulty s/w.
Their only safe response is to commission their own s/w which might have a restraining effect on the digital monoliths.
I suspect that there will be a natural balance in which many users will stick with well-known names (whether or not they are aware of the dangers) but that there will be an increase in the number of s/w houses writing bespoke s/w. The problem with that is compatibility but eventually enough people will start complaining and organisations such as the Electronic Frontiers Foundation will weigh in with international clout and things may change - like with privacy rules.
The problem is that monoliths provide uniformity, which makes compatibility issues easier, but such companies begin to abuse their dominance. Even the Mozilla Foundation, which boasts of its privacy policy won’t allow one to donate without the donor providing lots of personal information. Why? Bizarre.
Yeah, it’s not the taking responsibility for one’s actions that bother’s me, it’s the open ended “if you use our service, and as a result we have to hire a lawyer [for one one of a multitude of reasons] you (as the user) agree to pick up the tab - whatever that may be …” i.e. the open-ended and one-sided nature of the contract.
It was pointed out to me yesterday (by a solicitor) that many of these terms may not stand up in court, but then who wants to test this, and at what cost?!
The trouble with large organisations weighing in … who funds them? I get that they list income mainly from “individual” donations and not companies, but “which” individuals?
I think (playing devil’s advocate for a second) that Mozilla might be caught between a rock and a hard place (like many other organisations). I don’t know if you saw or remember in the press the case of Nigel Farage being dropped by his bank, maybe a year or two ago now? This escalated quickly and it became apparent he was by no means alone, nor was it restricted to people with money. I had a very similar experience with my bank maybe a year ago and as a result am now banking elsewhere. (this was for a business account with a tiny turnover) From what I saw on the news and from my own experience, it seems there are two issues;
Banks in particular (but other organisations to an extent) have to show evidence that they can see where income is coming from and there’s no chance of money laundering being an issue. This involves collecting no-end of information (IMO) they’re not entitled to.
They can choose who they want as customers / donors based on the opinions of employees in the account management loop.
So rather than it being a purely business / financial decision, whether you can accept money (as a bank or other organisation) depends on a number of non-commercial factors such as being able to prove the money being sent was taxed properly and not subject to money laundering in any way, and the political leanings of the donor. (i.e. a given organisation for example might not want to receive money from certain individuals as it might conflict with either the organisation or their own individual ethics)
The whole concept of regulation seems to have broken down, I’m guessing because the people responsible for it (typically governments) just don’t understand the implications of what they’re doing. The more you regulate, the more normal systems break down and the more some entities will find ways “around” the regulation, which makes normal systems break down even faster.
Case in point; someone comes along waving a US flag and says “I will scrap all this nonsense” … and then the regulators are dumbfounded when they make him president (!) I’ve heard it described as “the pendulum effect”. The further you pull a pendulum, the further it will swing back the other way when you ultimately have to let it go. I’m wondering how long we need to circle the economic toilet bowl in this country before we get someone in power with half an ounce of sense.