
Silicon Valley Puts the ‘Con’ in Consent - ingve
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/02/opinion/internet-facebook-google-consent.html
======
js2
The top comment on the article is worth reading. I’m copying it here.

James K. Lowden (Camden, Maine) writes:

It’s not just privacy, not just the internet, and not because of the internet.
It’s corporate power.

Some of us remember when getting a phone or credit card didn’t entail 13 pages
of fine print. There was nothing to agree to. Both parties reserved all rights
under the law.

Let’s note that the contracts we supposedly sign never grant us additional
rights. They’re entirely one-sided: you agree to thus-and-such for the
privilege of using what you paid for.

I learned in Business Law 101 that valid contracts had to be entered
voluntarily and had to include consideration: something of value from both
parties had to be at stake. “Shrink-wrap” contracts on software didn’t meet
that basic standard, but have been upheld nonetheless.

The law should state: there can be no “terms of sale” agreement for any retail
purpose. No waivers for renting a moped or a car, no terms on software or
websites, no contract for a phone or bank account. The firm must comply with
the law, an the consumer reserves all rights under the law, full stop.

Anything less is involuntary on its face. The corporate lawyers draft an
“agreement” worth millions to the firm but in absolute terms that same stake
is divided amongst millions of customers, none of which has enough at stake to
hire a lawyer (pretending the terms were negotiable). The very fact the terms
cannot be modified is prima facia evidence of coercion.

[https://nyti.ms/2DSfq4B#permid=30447668](https://nyti.ms/2DSfq4B#permid=30447668)

~~~
platz
What is the difference between a software liscence such as GPL and a
"contract" that must include consideration?

~~~
gumby
Well the GPL is standard and short, while most licenses are long and custom.

But I agree: I've long wondered why the GPL is treated like kryptonite, as
really it's just like any other software license except 1> the "consideration"
only applies when you distribute it and 2> the requirements for distribution
aren't paid in cash (just provide the appropriate source code).

If your corporate lawyers can deal with you licensing, say, VxWorks (or
Oracle!) they should find the GPL trivial by comparison.

------
malvosenior
How many trackers and ad platform pixels are currently running on nytimes.com?
It's ridiculous for NYT to get on a high horse and continue to attack tech
companies when they subject readers to just as many privacy invading
technologies as anyone else.

The title of this piece alone is pure yellow journalism.

~~~
danharaj
Being a hypocrite doesn't make you wrong.

~~~
ardy42
It's also not at all clear that the authors of this piece chose to put any
"trackers and ad platform pixels" on the site or are empowered to remove
anything like that. The NYT is not a self-hosted blog run by a techie.

