Terms of Service update(google.com)
google.com
Terms of Service update
http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/
7 comments
"Plain English" is the legal equivalent of pseudocode. (By similar reasoning, the courts are analogous to CPUs.)
The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it.
Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
The TOS isn't in plain English for the same reason that Android isn't written in pseudocode: the CPUs won't run it.
Also -- pseudocode ignores edge cases, boundary conditions, etc. to make it readable. Production code (and legal documents) can't escape these requirements.
"the CPUs won't run it"
A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system.
The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.
A TOS is a contract between Google and its users. The "CPU" in this case should then be the two parties to the contract (as these are the people meant to directly consume the contract's contents), not the legal system.
The legal system is more like an attached debugger. You wouldn't want different code being interpreted in the runtime and the debugger. Similarly, there should not be a different contract being agreed to and being litigated.
If you routinely sign contracts that you do not believe will stand up in court, you are asking for trouble. If you trust the other party in a contract to adjudicate on your behalf, you are asking for trouble. If you don't trust the other side to adjudicate, you will need an independent third party who can back up its rulings on your behalf. Conveniently, you've already paid for one with your taxes.
The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period.
Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.
The courts are the arbiter of contracts, period.
Edit: your analogy struck me as off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. The parties to the contract don't directly consume the contract, they use the fact that the legal system can do so. So: you and I don't consume the bytecode of our respective Web browsers, but we do use the fact that the CPUs in your respective devices can, so that we can debate this online. The applications are written for the CPUs; the contracts are written for the courts.
This is ivory tower thinking. There is precisely one interpretation that actually matters, and that's the judge presiding over the case.
Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.
Of course, his interpretation may be influenced by the parties' legal councils, but ultimately, it's the judge's call.
I really like that analogy.
Yes it is sexy, but it has the smell of a dangerous rhetoric flower.
The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output.
The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.
The CPU is a machine, it is deterministic, same input yields same output.
The legal system may try to be as predictable as possible, it is still a human production built on human language, and cannot be deterministic, not even asymptotically.
If they write a summary of the TOS for a user to read "instead" aren't they then legally bound to their summary?
Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer.
They are not making any attempt for the summary to replace the TOS, rather it is intended as a summary for user convenience. I imagine that the only way that they could run into trouble is if someone showed that they deliberately made the summary with the intention of misleading users. Also, if there is an ambiguity in there TOS, then the summary may be invoked when clarifying it, however it seems extremely unlikely that that would happen.
They are not making any attempt for the summary to replace the TOS, rather it is intended as a summary for user convenience. I imagine that the only way that they could run into trouble is if someone showed that they deliberately made the summary with the intention of misleading users. Also, if there is an ambiguity in there TOS, then the summary may be invoked when clarifying it, however it seems extremely unlikely that that would happen.
No. "plain English summary for your convenience" does not mean "instead". Also, TFA is a blog post; the actual Terms are here: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/update/
Has this concept ever been tried in court? There's an implication there that it's translated into "plain English". They even use the word "legalese". What's the difference between a blog post and a static webpage legally or even technically and what's the significance of that difference?
Read the Terms page. No "plain English" there. You're basically arguing that a company can't publish a summary of any of its contracts, anywhere. On its face, that's ridiculous. Heck, most/all mortgages in the US are required to have a summary document (that's the HUD). IANAL but I'd wager good money that there's established precedent here.
Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it.
Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.
Also, Google has good attorneys. Do you think that a broad principle like "posting a summary of a legal document binds you to the summary instead of the document" would sneak by? I doubt it.
Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs.
"Sometimes you have to get comfortable with the idea the non-programmers are as good at their disciplines as programmers are with theirs."
I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning.
I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.
I'm not under the impression that "programmers" are good at their discipline. Myself included. At the same time I wasn't trying to imply that the lawyers didn't know what they were doing. I was asking for conversation purposes about something that I didn't understand: The relationship between the two documents. You brought up an analogy seeming to show that you know the legal side, so I was asking further questions because I was interested in learning.
I think this is more nuanced than you're making it. What if the summary actually contradicted the terms? That summary could definitely be grounds for a lawsuit. I was just curious where that line was.
Technically, the legalese version is written in plain English. ;)
But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese.
I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
But snark aside, I don't think this plain English version is all that enforceable since it doesn't mention at any point about being a contract that you're agreeing to. IANAL, but I think this is part of why the actual TOS isn't written in "normal English". All the stuff that makes it binding (or is supposed to, anyway) and prevents lawyers from twisting the words is what we call legalese.
I don't so much blame companies for this sorry state, but the legal system and the lawyers who inhabit it. Google and the like are just doing what they must to navigate in that environment.
TECHNICALLY "plain" means a number of things but most definitions revolve around: "easy to perceive or understand; clear, not decorated or elaborate".
By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.
By a dictionary definition (a technical one), convoluted legalese is anything but plain English.
So there is clear and precise language, and then there is plain and vague language which is easily interpreted.
Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?
Which would you rather have in legally binding contracts to which you are voluntarily a party?
It would certainly be open to the user to argue before a court that as the plain English version was more easily understood and avoided obscure legal terms, then that is the version that is enforceable against them.
This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand.
As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though.
Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
This is particularly the case in the EU where legislation requires consumer-facing agreements to be in language that users are able to understand.
As far as I'm aware the issue has not been directly tested before a court. In part because the two-tiered approach is not adopted by many companies, and also because disputes over company's terms rarely reach court. It would definitely be interesting to see a court's take on the two-tiered approach though.
Speaking of plain English terms, at my workplace I recently re-drafted our main consumer-facing agreement to use exclusively plain English. This is likely to mean we would be more likely to enforce it, and also, I don't feel any certainty has been lost or if there has been any reduction this is outweighed by the benefit in making the terms more digestible by users.
I believe the legalese version is the actual one and it offers protection in front a court.
As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.
As for the plain English, I think is because in law you have to be very explicit in order to do not leave any holes.
Here is the new (November 11) TOS. Reads like plain English to me.
http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/terms/update/
The legalese.
(And I agree.)
(And I agree.)
They differ in specificity.
Thank you! Most interesting bit imo:
"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad."
Now the question is where are the settings? I assume it will be allowed by default. Will my choice be respected in the long run?
"If you have a Google Account, we may display your Profile name, Profile photo, and actions you take on Google or on third-party applications connected to your Google Account (such as +1’s, reviews you write and comments you post) in our Services, including displaying in ads and other commercial contexts. We will respect the choices you make to limit sharing or visibility settings in your Google Account. For example, you can choose your settings so your name and photo do not appear in an ad."
Now the question is where are the settings? I assume it will be allowed by default. Will my choice be respected in the long run?
The link is immediately available under the same text in the actual TOS: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en
From: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/
It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid in my opinion.
From: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/
It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid in my opinion.
Ah I didn't realize this was only for google+?
Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?
Doesn't this apply to gmail (my real name), google calendar, my youtube account, my android usage...? My searches?
When I clicked the "endorsement" link, I was redirected to a "Join Google+" page. So I guess it's only applicable to Google+ (now).
I don't know. It looks like this is for using ads in social search. Technically they are pushing hard to make YouTube just a subset of Google+ though, so who knows what extent this affects people, but it seems pretty restricted right now.
Gotta whittle people down slowly :)
Gotta whittle people down slowly :)
Yup! People will give up their privacy "willingly" sooner or later!
That was actually almost pleasurable to read. If only all services made their TOS updates that easy to read, or that easy to see what has changed.
You can opt out of Shared Endorsements (mentioned in the new ToS) here: https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en
I wish other companies would borrow this "format" when they update their ToS. Even providing an easily accessible diff without me doing the work would be helpful. Too many times have I clicked on a ToS update to be directed to the new terms with a short note saying they're being updated on a certain date.
Use the wonderful Docracy Terms of Service Tracker:
https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes
They provide handy diffs of hundreds of sites' ToS and privacy policies (and you can mail them to add others). You can also get Docracy to mail you when selected sites update their ToS.
[EDIT] - hmm, last updated in July, looks like they might have abandoned it :(
https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes
They provide handy diffs of hundreds of sites' ToS and privacy policies (and you can mail them to add others). You can also get Docracy to mail you when selected sites update their ToS.
[EDIT] - hmm, last updated in July, looks like they might have abandoned it :(
It seems to have been updated on October 11th... this site definitely will come in handy.
If you haven't seen it already, check out http://tosdr.org/
> So if you’re asked for your password, think twice and consider whether there might be safer and more secure ways to share the information.
Interesting, given the recent hullabaloo around people submitting their Gmail credentials to Linked In for contact-scraping.
From some of the technical measures Google outlines as 'unusual activity' it sounds like they might be closing that hole...
Interesting, given the recent hullabaloo around people submitting their Gmail credentials to Linked In for contact-scraping.
From some of the technical measures Google outlines as 'unusual activity' it sounds like they might be closing that hole...
Where is the option for Google to pay me if they choose to use my image or likeness in "Shared Endorsements"? I can't see why anyone who is even a minor celebrity/blogger whose livelihood depends on being in the public consciousness would want to enable this option.
The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".
The other question is "what happens should Google fail to respect my choice not to enable shared endorsements?".
Why not just write your TOS in plain English, then? Also, if a company supplies both a "legalese" version and a "plain English" version that differ, which one takes precedent?