
Terms of Service update - tayeed
http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/
======
kylec

        We are updating the Google Terms of Service. The new Terms will go
        live on November 11, 2013 and you can read them here.
    
        Because many of you are allergic to legalese, here’s a plain English
        summary for your convenience.
    

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?

~~~
runako
"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.

~~~
jforman
"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.

~~~
runako
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.

------
crb
Diff:
[https://www.google.com/policies/terms/archive/20120301-20131...](https://www.google.com/policies/terms/archive/20120301-20131111/)

~~~
lawn
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?

~~~
codezero
The link is immediately available under the same text in the actual TOS:
[https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en](https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en)

From:
[http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/](http://www.google.com/policies/terms/changes/)

It's very clear and had saved my previous restrictive settings, which is solid
in my opinion.

~~~
lawn
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?

~~~
gcb0
I hope not as I still managed to escape all the pre-selected checkboxes to tie
my account with g+

~~~
codezero
Godspeed gcb0, Godspeed!

------
TheCraiggers
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.

------
bry
You can opt out of Shared Endorsements (mentioned in the new ToS) here:
[https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en](https://plus.google.com/settings/endorsements?hl=en)

~~~
erenemre
If you don't have a Google+ account, this link forces you to create one. So I
can't access these settings and I do not want a G+ account.

I'm unsure if they still can use my info on shared endorsements...

~~~
nl
Endorsements require an action on behalf of the user and therefor require
Google+

------
mcescalante
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.

~~~
joosters
Use the wonderful Docracy Terms of Service Tracker:

[https://www.docracy.com/tos/changes](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 :(

~~~
mcescalante
It seems to have been updated on October 11th... this site definitely will
come in handy.

------
dingaling
> 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...

------
brisance
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?".

