
Terms and Conditions, the Graphic Novel - techbubble
https://blog.mozilla.org/internetcitizen/2017/04/03/terms-and-conditions-the-graphic-novel/
======
deathanatos
> _Carnegie Mellon University estimated the median length of a single online
> privacy policy, for example, to be 2,514 words. This would take 10 minutes
> to read._

That seems extremely generous. That's a reading rate of 252 WPM through
legalese. Wikipedia[1] seems to say that studies say we can only do 180 WPM
off a monitor while proofreading, presumably normal prose:

> While proofreading materials, people are able to read English at 200 WPM on
> paper, and 180 WPM on a monitor.

I presume legalese will take longer to comprehend. Additionally, that's the
privacy policy. We need to also add in the Terms of Service:

> _the iTunes Terms and Conditions fluctuated in length from 14,000 words to a
> whopping 23,000 words._

At the above reading speed ( _ignoring_ the fact that this is legalese) that's
1h 17m to 2h 8m of reading. The legalese _will_ slow you down if you actual
seek to comprehend the words in front of your eyes. Two-and-half to three
hours of reading? The user will never read the ToS.

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute#Reading_and_c...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute#Reading_and_comprehension)

------
zanecodes
In my ideal fantasy world, we wouldn't have terms of service; instead, we
would be given a structured 'legal code' file, which encodes the terms and
conditions as unambiguously as possible.

I could add my personal preferences to my local licenseconfig; for instance, I
want to own everything created using software on my machine, and I don't want
companies to be able to sell my data, regardless of whether it is anonymized.

Now when I install software, my license daemon alerts me if that software's
legal code might conflict with my preferences, and gives me the option of
clarifying my configuration, making an exception, or cancelling the
installation.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _we wouldn 't have terms of service; instead, we would be given a structured
> 'legal code' file_

They're called terms and they're parsed by meat parsers. We call them lawyers
and judges. They are more powerful than any computer. The system they've built
has been working for hundreds of years. We have lots of people who understand
how it works.

If you make the contract the code, you just replace lawyers with coders.
You'll still have drafting errors [1]. You'll still have things looking like X
but really doing Y [2]. And you'll still need somewhere to adjudicate
conflicts.

The law is fine. Our backlog is in the parsers [3]. Replacing lawyers and
judges with AI seems more desirable than some "code is contract" society.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_Autonomous_Organization)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware)

[3] [https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-federal-courts-civil-
cases-p...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-federal-courts-civil-cases-pile-
up-1428343746)

~~~
nebabyte
He's asking for a standard, not an API to various oracle machines currently in
existence.

The "system that works for years" relies on subjectively-defined terms often
fiated by those oracle machines (thus only deterministic given the
'institutional knowledge' of 'accepted practice' depending on various
jurisdictions) which aren't actually written down or encoded anywhere.

Because anyone who _would_ be in a position to see that and write those down
usually has a job instead acting as an oracle machine for decisions made based
on that knowledge.

And that's just _one_ of the gotchas where that's concerned. Taking the
'ideal' solution of just encoding 'common practices' ad-hoc as issues arise,
you might as well just roll your own at that point.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _He 's asking for a standard_

We have predictable standards codified in statute and case law. Most cases
settle predictably. A few make new law. These receive disproportionate media
attention because they are defining edge cases. It doesn't matter if your law
is in code or text at that point. If you have an investigatory law saying
"books and papers," and a prosecutor seizes an iPhone, you _have_ to produce
new law.

This ambiguity is a product of mapping heterogeneity between abstract concepts
and the real world. There will _never_ be agreement on what all words mean.
"Is this a chair? Yes. Is that a chair? No, it's art. Who says? Let's debate."
That is a product of language.

> _which aren 't actually written down or encoded anywhere_

Here's a random, recent Supreme Court opinion [1]. I don't have a legal
background; I find it highly readable. Furthermore, the citations are pretty
easy to follow.

> _anyone who would be in a position to see that and write those down usually
> has a job instead acting as an oracle machine_

Not everyone trained in law is a legislator. (Or judge.) Many legislators,
judges, lawyers, professors, students and random people opine on the law in
books, blogs and other materials. This is a public debate. When courts face an
edge case, lawyers from both sides cite these materials. After that, once a
precedent is set (and recorded), it is respected until a new edge case arises
or the statute is revised by the political system.

[1]
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/14-9496_8njq.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/14-9496_8njq.pdf)

~~~
ckastner
> This ambiguity is a product of mapping heterogeneity between abstract
> concepts and the real world. There will never be agreement on what all words
> mean

And even if there is agreement, these meanings may change over time.

It is not uncommon for laws to be deliberately abstract precisely to
accomodate future developments.

------
username223
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone: [https://www.mozilla.org/en-
US/about/legal/](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/legal/)

Any software or web page you use is backed by an inscrutable pile of legalese
that you "agreed to" without reading, and may or may not be enforceable.

~~~
cooper12
You know, just because you take part in or benefit from a system, it doesn't
mean you can't critique it at all right? It's better that despite having such
terms themselves, that Mozilla's blog chose to highlight a comic that
addresses the issue. Your alternative of not casting any stone just dooms us
to the status quo and nothing will ever change.

This silly statement is so common that there are comics like these in
response:

* [http://i.imgur.com/BTr7vwj.png](http://i.imgur.com/BTr7vwj.png) * [http://i.imgur.com/PJgLi7N.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PJgLi7N.jpg)

~~~
throwanem
> You know, just because you take part in or benefit from a system, it doesn't
> mean you can't critique it at all right?

No, but it does mean your critique is necessarily compromised, if not
necessarily in a fatal way. Intellectual honesty requires this compromise be
addressed, but contempt is a great deal easier.

------
Animats
Good idea, but pictures are unrelated.

~~~
nickpsecurity
That's what I'm seeing. It's better if they break the ideas up, try to
understand them from a lay perspective, and then build a graphic novel on
that. This will likely get nowhere for general population.

~~~
CaliforniaKarl
I think you may be seeing this as something it's not.

This is not a group's attempt at making T&Cs readable or understandable. It's
not an EFF thing.

This is one guy's answer a challenge he set himself: Terms and Conditions, the
text itself, is antithetical to a comic script. So I will make it fit.

This, in my opinion, is more art than anything else. It's something where most
of the residents of Silicon X (valley, beach, etc.) will see it as something
that it is not. For that reason, I don't think Mozilla was the best place for
this to be covered.

I suggest reading the New York Times' review, from about a month ago:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/itunes-terms-
condit...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/books/itunes-terms-conditions-
comic-book.html)

EDIT: I forgot to note, this isn't intended to be a graphic novel in the mass-
market sense. It's a Drawn & Quarterly publication, whose comics are not what
you'd normally expect.

------
GTP
Very nice idea! Reading the comic is much better than reding the original
terms and conditions document.

------
H4CK3RM4N
Why does moz://a need to post this? This reads like a MacRumours post.

~~~
hashhar
Because Mozilla's goal is to keep the web open and advocate for personal data
privacy. This article fits nicely there with the rest of similarly themed
articles on the blog.

~~~
flomo
Aside from the creative exercise, it is a complete dud argument because
Mozilla isn't comparing and contrasting with their own licenses and user
agreements.

I mean, does Mozilla even offer album art downloads? Because I don't even get
the beef they have with Jobsman's benign T&C.

