
My Doctor's Office Asked Me To Lie - gulbrandr
http://www.stallman.org/articles/asked_to_lie.html
======
chrisacky
Could you imagine at the extremes if you had been refused treatment because of
your refusal to sign this document, to which you knew to be untrue, and to
which they could not provide you with the policy. I studied law for four years
(haven't qualified) , but I'm still not even sure on the liability on this one
(if there is any at all in this hypothetical).

It just shows how bureaucratic everything has become when a privacy policy
contains 3000 pages, to which they clearly never refer to, and to which you
are most likely the first person to have ever asked to actually see the
policy.

Best wishes with your health Richard!

~~~
jrs235
Additionally, what about the fact that if the woman knew the Privacy Policy
was 3000 pages and in a binder (which she claimed to be aware of) and
knowingly accepts a statement she strongly believes to be untrue? Is this
enough to invalidate the "contract" because it is blatantly known that full
disclosure and meeting of the minds has not been met?

This also comes to mind during mortgages and car loans. Often the closer will
just hand you a stack of papers and say "you need to initial here, here, and
here, sign here, here, and here" and then expect/anticipate the person to do
just that without reading the agreement. The closer ought to know that the
signer has not actually read the document and therefore the initials and
signatures don't represent what they are meant to represent... that the person
has READ the whole thing and mindfully agreed to it! Agh!

~~~
techdmn
I the first time I closed on a house, realizing ten minutes in that either I
was going to be signing contracts without reading them, or everyone was going
to be sitting around watching me read for three hours. There's a lot of
pressure in a situation like that, even though I try never to sign anything
without reading it.

~~~
spolsky
Did you have a lawyer to represent you? That's their job... to make sure that
the contract you're signing is OK. Actually reading a contract without
knowledge of the law, case history, and background can get you into just as
much trouble as not reading it at all. That's why you have lawyers review
important contracts.

~~~
7402
The first time I rented a car, I spent 10 minutes reading the rental
agreement. I don't do that any more; I just glance at it and sign it.

I am not a lawyer. Suppose a rental car matter ended up court. I would rather
not have to say to the judge, "I spent 10 minutes thoughtfully reading and
evaluating the contract, and after careful consideration decided to accept the
agreement." I would rather be able to say, "Gee, it was printed in gray ink in
tiny type on the back of the paper, and they told me to just sign here on the
front to get the car. I needed the car, so I did what they told me."

I never accept the "standard contract" when it comes to employment or
consulting gigs - then I always read carefully, propose alterations, and often
talk to my lawyer. But if it really is a "standard contract" signed by
millions (including, presumably, lots of lawyers, too) then I am inclined to
balance the risks and benefits and opt for ignorance over informed consent.

~~~
davidcuddeback
I always read employment contracts before signing them, too. Last time I did
this, the contract said something to the effect of, "The company can modify
this agreement at any time without notifying the employee." I immediately
crossed out that clause and initialed.

~~~
Periodic
Does that actually work? Is it enforceable? I would imagine that if you sent
back a contract with modifications for their review that they would balk at
hiring or you would get involved with the lawyers who are so much better at
legal negotiating than you are.

I definitely would not do that with a consulting contract. The chance that
something weird would come up is generally worth it to get a good client.

~~~
tjic
> Does that actually work? Is it enforceable?

Yes, it's legal and enforceable. Your signature is on the contract that you
sign, not on some mythical un-marked-up copy.

In fact, this is often a good negotiating tactic: someone hands you a
contract, and they just want to get it signed. You strike out the price and
write in a new price (or whatever), initial it, sign it, and hand it back.

The psychic weight is now on them - they have a SIGNED CONTRACT and all they
need to do is to sign it themselves.

Taking the conceptual step backwards from a contract (albeit only signed by
one party) to a contract signed by NEITHER party is a bit hard to do.

------
rfugger
I recently had a similar experience at my dentist's office. I was asked to
sign a waiver of liability, presumably for insurance purposes. It asked me to
state that I had been informed of the risks of the procedure (tooth removal),
including a long list of possible bad outcomes. I asked the dentist about
this, and she said not to worry, most of those couldn't happen here. So I
asked her to please strike the ones that couldn't happen, and explain the
likelihood of the other complications, _as her own document required her to
do_. After disgustedly doing this, and spending another 20 minutes fulfilling
the other requirements of the document she wanted me to sign, she poked a
needle in my mouth, yanked my tooth out, and walked away without saying
another word.

She clearly blamed me for wasting her time, since other patients obviously
sign the form and get on with it. I actually think the problem here was that
the form was _too short_ , and so I felt that I could actually reasonably go
through it, as opposed to a lengthy legalistic form that I couldn't possibly
be held to in court if it turned out to be unfair.

~~~
WiseWeasel
It is ill-advised to spite your dentist soon before they get to work with
sharp objects inside your mouth (or anyone, really).

~~~
scott_s
He didn't "spite" his dentist. He wanted her to explain the risks of the
procedure - which I think is reasonable.

~~~
WiseWeasel
Maybe he didn't ask in the most tactful manner.

~~~
scott_s
Sure, that's possible. But you have no evidence for it, and I find it (
_cough_ ) rude to assume so, and then criticize him for it.

~~~
WiseWeasel
I merely bring up the possibility, and do not disagree with your point. I
might also add that it is rude to assume the dentist acted inappropriately. In
any case, we have very little information to work with.

As a rule of thumb, however, the wise one treads carefully when dealing with
someone who is about to have her in a particularly vulnerable position.

------
StavrosK
I don't know how it is in the US, but here (Greece), most people aren't aware
that you can modify contracts, or even that they're binding.

I've had various people come up to me with company offers and asking me to
sign things, which, after I've read, I said, for example "I'm not authorizing
you to use my email to send me things, so I'll strike this clause out". People
(including the person who handed me the agreement) looked at me as if I were
the most pedantic person in the world, or as if I were trying to make things
fall upwards.

It's very disconcerting, because nearly everyone treats contracts as a "take
it or leave it" affair. Sure, when you're getting a new phone, the employee
doesn't have the power to agree to alter the contract, but in many cases you
can do it.

~~~
ge0rg
_"... so I'll strike this clause out"_

Unfortunately, this option is taken away from us in online transactions. There
is no legally binding way to change the text of the contract, and you are even
forced to tick these "I accept the terms of ..." check boxes before
proceeding.

~~~
kragen
I edit online contracts this way all the time. Right-click in Chrome, "Inspect
Element", right-click, "Edit element as HTML".

~~~
sirclueless
I'd like to see someone argue _that_ in court.

~~~
NegativeK
It's come up on This Week in Law. Someone was sending back a modified EULA in
the POST data.

The lawyers on the show mainly thought it was cute and not something that
would be recognized in court.

~~~
vsync
I've implemented electronic signatures before and what I like to do is have
the browser submit the agreement back to the server and the server rejects it
if it's been altered.

~~~
kragen
That seems reasonable.

------
uberuberuber
While the doctor's office may have been the proximate agent asking him to
'lie', the true culprit is the incomprehensible, self-contradictory system
that elected and unelected bureaucrats in the US have cobbled together over
the decades. If the doctor doesn't maintain that privacy paperwork (which as
rms noted the police can view at will anyway), they will not receive
reimbursement from CMS. There are likely other statutory issues with HIPAA
that I'm unfamiliar with. It's difficult to fault them for not wasting their
limited time/money resisting the paperwork requirements when it would only
detract from patient care resources.

If he were actually In Extremis, the physician/nurse/EMS would treat him under
implied consent. Technically a patient of sound mind can refuse care but in
practice someone who looks like rms (beard discrimination) ranting about his
privacy would rather quickly be hit with a B52 (50mg Benadryl, 5mg Haldol, 2mg
Ativan). Emergency providers are in a bit of a quandary as they must choose
between the possibility of missing a subdural hematoma on a patient refusing
care and facing a wrongful death lawsuit, and facing a lawsuit for unlawful
imprisonment and assault.

------
morsch
Note that the article is from 2011 (August 1 if you believe the headers). No
direct relation to the "rms collapsed" story posted yesterday.

~~~
drostie
Yeah. As it says on the bottom, "Copyright 2011 Richard Stallman released
under Creative Commons Attribution Noderivs 3.0 unported".

It's a surprising statement for many reasons. First, I have traditionally
thought of CC as somehow opposed to GNU, but here's Stallman releasing with
CC. Second, it's a 2011 document -- had he not been to a doctor prior to 2011?
unlikely, so maybe he just never noticed what he was signing?

Perhaps the most surprising thing is the "noderivs" part. One important text
-- the GPL -- is also released as copyrighted, to discourage people from
modifying the GPL in their COPYING documents in their repositories. But CC
Noderivs prohibits any modification of this little snippet. I thought the
whole point of free software was modifiability -- but Stallman doesn't think
that this applies to free art? Meanwhile, it is _not_ released as share-alike,
which is the CC license which "copylefts" the work in the way that the GNU GPL
acts to copyleft software.

~~~
r4vik
He releases his books under GNU FDL, so they can be remixed. But I assume he
doesn't want people changing his blog posts. Makes sense to me.

~~~
wccrawford
I think there's a fundamental difference, too. His books are fiction. (Or
fact. I dunno, I didn't read them.) His blog posts are his personal opinion. I
would definitely treat their contents differently.

------
Jun8
What's really the problem with this situation is that it's really hard to
point a finger to a single culprit in the system thereby pointing to a way to
solve the problem. That's why it's a wicked problem
(<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicked_problem>)

* The doctors cannot be blamed because they want to protect themselves (e.g. see the insane amounts of insurance required to practice medicine in the US to guard against suing by patients) and "the system" forces them to create such documents and have them signed.

* The patients cannot be blamed because, well, you don't want to sign your consent to a document that you haven't read and that may (and will) contain clauses that are clearly adversarial to you. But the issue is not just having access to the document, 99% of the people won't have the knowledge, let alone the patience, to parse such a legal document.

* The politicians are not to blame because they are just bowing to public pressure (and of course powerful lobbies) and many of these laws and practices are one way rachet-up, i.e. they can never be loosened (see, e.g. the overly strict sex laws in the US).

* The lawyers are not to blame because they are just being employed by people, i.e. they are not evil _by themselves_ but may be put to evil use (similar to "guns don't kill people" defense).

For a recent example of suing madness (in a slightly different area) in the US
consider that Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people
couldn't read the clear nutritional sign
([http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/10/133565759/a-mom-s...](http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/02/10/133565759/a-mom-
sues-nutella-maker-for-deceptive-advertising?ft=1&f=103537970)).

I don't know what the solution is. But the US healthcare industry is
converging to disaster if we don't solve problems like this.

~~~
tomp
> Nutella was sued and was fined $3.6M just because people couldn't read the
> clear nutritional sign

Did you even read the article? It clearly says that Nutella was sued because
it had misleading advertising, saying/implying that it was healthy, when in
reality it contains a lot of sugar.

I know that Coca-Cola is bad for your health (it's pretty obvious that any
sweet drink is bad for your teeth and makes you fat and probably not any less
thirsty). But I would still want the company fined if it advertised Coca-Cola
drink as being healthy.

~~~
Jun8
All advertising is misleading in a sense, the question is where to draw the
line: the legal complaint
(<http://www.courthousenews.com/2011/02/02/Nutella.pdf>) states that the moms
were duped because they saw TV commercials that showed moms feeding Nutella to
their healthy families. Although I think the ""An example of a tasty yet
balanced breakfast." label should be removed from Nuteall jars (which'll be
done, [http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-
company...](http://commonlaw.findlaw.com/2012/05/nutella-lawsuit-company-to-
pay-up-over-misleading-advertising.html)) I don't the millions of dollars
awarded (I misstated this, actually it was $3.06M) makes sense, but then I'm
no lawyer.

BTW, you can go to this site
([https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQues...](https://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com/FrequentlyAskedQuestions.aspx))
and claim up to $20 if you've bought Nutella, no receipts asked (until the
allocated $2.5M runs out).

~~~
calloc
In the time period listed I've bought WAY more than 5 jars of Nutella, but I
don't honestly think that I bought it thinking "Hey this is healthy!".

------
joshuafcole
It's not exactly an isolated case. When I turned 18 I was presented with the
same document. To my mother's dismay, I pointed out the flaws and then marked
in the necessary negatives in pen to render the document useless before
signing it. Since the other party (a member with legal power at the clinic)
did not sign after me, I'm not sure the form is actually binding on either of
us. Could somebody clarify what precedent holds in the case of a single party
signing a contract and having it accepted but not signed by the other?

EDIT: It occurs to me that I should mention that there is no place for the
other party to sign on the document in the first place. There may have been a
photocopied signature already on the form.

~~~
tzs
I doubt that these documents are contracts. They aren't intended to create a
legal obligation on the part of either party but rather are intended to be
evidentiary documents to prove that the privacy policy was disclosed to the
patient and the patient told the doctor's office that he understood it.

Your signature on the document is there to refute any future claim you might
make that you were not presented with the privacy information.

I'm assuming the privacy form is a separate document. If it is part of a
larger document then perhaps that document also includes elements that make it
a contract. In that case the lack of signature on their end is probably not a
problem.

It's a common belief that contracts must be in writing and signed. In fact
only certain kinds of contract must be in writing and signed (the biggies are
contracts that cannot be performed within one year, contracts that transfer
interests in land, and contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more).

Otherwise, all you need is for both parties to have agreed on the terms of the
contract and a thing called "consideration". Consideration is a subtle and
elusive concept but roughly it means each person obligated under the contract
is getting something valuable in exchange for taking on the contractual
obligation.

If both parties agree to something and both uphold their end of the bargain
then it doesn't really matter whether or not they actually managed to form a
legally enforceable contract. That only matters if something goes wrong and
one or more parties want to use the courts to enforce the contract or win
damages for breach of contract.

If you have to sue someone over a contract you'll have to prove that there
actually was a contract formed with them. That will be a lot easier if the
contract was in writing and you had them sign it.

~~~
joshuafcole
Thanks for the information! I doubt it will come to a confrontation, but it's
been an itch I couldn't scratch for almost a year now pondering the
implications.

------
ChuckMcM
I find arguing with the functionaries at the desk is ineffective, however
since they are simply 'doing what they are told' they will often do what you
tell them too. I signed a privacy policy where it stipulated the company would
pay me $5,000 for each occurrence that it shared any of my information.

It went like this:

Receptionist: "You need to sign this privacy consent form."

Me: "I don't agree with that form so I won't sign it."

Receptionist: "Well if you don't sign it we can't help you."

Me: "Ok, how about this, give me another copy, I'll just mark it up a bit and
we can both sign it, ok?"

Receptionist: "Uh, I guess so."

...I take the form, add various and sundry financial obligations, and
restrictions on what they can do with my data, add a line at the bottom
"representative date"....

Take it back to the receptionist.

Me: "Ok put your initials here, here, and here and sign at the bottom."

Receptionist: "Uh, ok."

Me: "Both copies, thanks."

I then asked on the way out where their legal office was. And and gave them
one of the signed copies. The last I saw was that receptionist looking at
their marked up form with a very puzzled look. :-)

~~~
nathanb
If you tested that in court you would almost certainly find that the
receptionist has not been granted the authority to enter the office into
legally-binding contracts.

~~~
vidarh
I don't think that's so much the point, though. It's a fun "hack". And while
the receptionist may not have that authority, the end result was that he also
did not sign their document, so he achieved his initial goal of not signing a
document he did not agree to.

They have two choices: Treat him as if he signed nothing binding at all, or
accept his version of the document.

------
casualreader
Re:

"There is no real confidentiality of medical records in the US, since the
police can get them under very easy conditions."

Very true. And sometimes police can obtain information without even having to
ask.

I work for a regional pharmacy outlet and it is the company policy to transmit
Pseudoephedrine (PSE) Sales Log Records to the local police department every
week.

After writing a memo stating customers/patients should be at least given an
informed consent that the information they are required by law to provide in
order to purchase PSE is then released to the local police department - an act
not required by law. I was told that PSE sales information is not considered
Protected Health Information under HIPAA and thus not a breach of Federal
privacy law. Granted since PSE is an over-the-counter product its purchase
does not technically qualify as a 'medical record'. However, because PSE is
purchased 'behind-the-counter' at pharmacies in the U.S. I believe there is a
reasonable expectation of privacy on the public's part in this regard.

The Board of Pharmacy in an e-mail clarification to this memo did not address
HIPAA compliance but merely stated that the methamphetamine unit officers were
'approved' to receive such information and for all pharmacies to please kindly
comply with their ongoing methamphetamine combating efforts.

I've taken a personal policy to comply with the company policy - having higher
educational debt cheapens the price of selling one's self - but to openly
share what is done with the records if asked. So far no one has ever asked me
what is done with the records.

~~~
mkopinsky
When a customer writes down his/her name and address in the log book of
Customers Who Bought Meth Ingredients, I think the reasonable assumption is
that this log book will be shared with law enforcement. This active - and very
visible - step of recording the information makes that sharing quite likely in
the customer's mind.

If this sharing were occurring based on scans of customer loyalty cards or the
like, I would be more troubled.

------
josefonseca
Here(Brazil) everything seems to work like that. You sign 200 pieces of paper
each day and if you'd enforce everything you agree to in just one day, the
legal system would halt.

Recently I tried to purchase a small stereo, one of those tiny little ones
that just play radio and a CD. They demanded that I provide full personal
information in order to give me my receipt. I know that demanding personal
information in order to print a receit is illegal here. So I question the
attendant. She says she can only print it with that data. So before I had a
stroke, and after 15 minutes of stupid arguments, I go ahead and do what
Stallman did: fill it with BS and negate the "I agree" thing at the end,
signed it - bought the stereo.

That movie "Brazil" with the ridiculous 26bStroke6 form is not too far from
reality now that I think of it.

------
jhrobert
When everybody becomes a forced liar, it becomes easy for authentic liars to
hide in the crowd.

~~~
forinti
This is why I hate the bureaucracy in my country (Brazil). There's a clear
penalty for trying to do things the right way (tons of useless and expensive
paperwork), and nothing happens to the crooks who take advantage of the
system.

~~~
idleloops
Terry Gilliam's film: Brazil spotlights the absurdity of bureaucracy. Is
Brazil renowned for theirs?

~~~
arctangent
The film is named after this song:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquarela_do_Brasil>

~~~
idleloops
Thanks, I somehow totally missed that!

------
JBiserkov
Offtopic: I liked how minimalistic the site looks, so I looked at the source -
just a bunch of <p> with a h1 on top. The head was also really clean - a
title, encoding, favicon and

    
    
      <link href="stallman.css" ... >
    

This a 404, but if you try to open /stallman.css you get
<http://www.stallman.org/stallman.css>

Again, pretty minimal just a few rules and comments... and then this:

    
    
      /*
      This causes the entire page to be red when you click anywhere so I
      do not want it.  Not sure why we had it to begin with.
      07/26/2010 jcv
      :active {
      	color: #FF0000
      }
      */

~~~
rfugger
This article was beautiful to read on mobile!

------
jon_dahl
_"How about if I add 'not' to make it a true statement?" She accepted this. So
I had my appointment._

That is an elegant solution to the problem.

~~~
kayge
I was hoping he'd clarify whether he changed it to "... has not been provided
to me..." or "... has !been provided to me..."

------
stcredzero
I just paid $44 to fax medical records to health insurance underwriters. The
woman at the doctor's office was surprised the underwriters didn't access
those records themselves. Also odd, they're also asking for all my other
records for the past 5 years, when I already gave permission in a conference
call for them to access those records.

Are they deliberately trying to discourage my application by burying me in
expense and redundant bureaucratic busywork?

------
dr_
The reality is, had the privacy notice been available appropriately, and had
been signed, how do you know that it is enforced? Most practices are busy and
run rather chaotically to think about that. By and large most medical groups
do not want to share information about their patients with people who don't
need it. We don't have marketers walking into our offices asking for specific
patient information. We only share it with appropriate individuals, that have
been authorized by the patient or who are clearly involved in the patients
care for a particular condition.

I suppose there are databases out there with diagnoses of patients and the
medications they take, but there are no patient identifiers in these
databases, so it's basically an anonymous batch. That kind of anonymous data
is going to be important to make further advances in healthcare IT, and
healthcare in general.

~~~
wccrawford
You don't know if it's enforced or not until something happens. At that point,
you can sue them because they didn't follow the contract.

But then, that's how all contracts work.

------
rheeseyb
Almost every day I agree to the terms and conditions of software that I have
never read, and have no intentions of ever reading. In no way does this make
it acceptable for the doctor's office to ask people to regularly agree to
terms that haven't been presented with - my argument is that in this society
in which we live it has become an acceptable practice to baffle the general
public by dumping ridiculous amounts of legalese (with terms that are never in
our favour) in front of us and making us sign it before we can use everyday
services.

The worst bit about this is that most of these services then go on to take a
big fat steamy dump on our personal rights and our privacy (I'm sure I don't
need to give any examples here!), and there's nothing we can do because we
agreed to the terms that were "clearly" laid out infront of us before we even
used the service.

------
shasta
You should be careful just adding "not", because they can always claim they
didn't notice you modified the agreement (I'm assuming no one on their staff
signed or initialled your change).

~~~
Angostura
To which the reply is "That's a shame, you should train your staff".

~~~
shasta
Snappy "replies" might not hold as much weight in a legal setting as you
imagine.

~~~
narag
The writing on the paper do. If they didn't check it was unmodified and went
ahead, it seems the problem is theirs.

~~~
planetguy
I'm not an expert on contract law, but I'm fairly sure that one party
modifying a contract without the other person's notice or consent does _not_
make the modifications legally binding, which is why you do need to get the
other party to initial changes you've made.

A contract is a physical expression legal agreement which both parties are
supposed to know about, it's not a magical piece of paper which enforces
whatever's written on it.

I should note that in this _particular_ case the chances of any of this ever
mattering are essentially zero. Just letting everyone know, in case they think
they can go out, buy a house and move a decimal point in the sales contract
while nobody's looking.

~~~
scotty79
So if I don't know what's on the paper because no one has made sure that I do
then I still can be upheld on what I signed but if the guy who gave me paper
to sign doesn't know what's on the paper because he didn't notice my changes
then he can't be liable?

~~~
shasta
You have a duty to read before you sign a contract. In this case, they can
claim you tricked them into thinking you'd signed the form contract, and that
they relied on that agreement when they provided you care. IANAL, but I
suspect you will lose this unless you can show that the staffer accepted your
changes knowingly.

------
ajarmoniuk
In 2003 I wanted to import my car from France as I was moving back to Poland.
As I bought the car in France, all official paperwork I had was the French
registration card and a car "cession" document. There was no price stated on
the cession document.

The official at the Polish registration office gave me a photocopied Belgian
registration form and told me to fill that in, fill the price and sign for the
seller (in other words, forge the seller's signature).

------
igorsyl
The medical industry is in need of disruption. Has anyone played with the idea
of "seeing" a doctor located in a different country using a video app? I
imagine the experience would be better than what most people deal with in the
states. US doctors have too much power and they take advantage of it. A remote
doctor would be under more competition and be willing to provide better
service.

~~~
mahyarm
That doctor will not be able to authorize you to purchase restricted
medications they recommend, or authorize your insurance to pay for various
expensive procedures and test.

------
limeblack
Had a similar scenario happen when giving blood a couple months ago. They
suggested there were closing in half an hour, but insisted that I give blood
anyway. They took blood samples checking iron levels and then brought me over
to a desk to sign a consent form. They promptly brought out a 200 page binder,
saying I was required to read it prior to signing the form.

I opened up the binder and started to read, but quickly realized it was
humanly impossible to finish it the remaining time. Several other people sat
down next to me planning to give blood, signing the form without even opening
the binder. I figured OK well, they aren't required to read the binder, but
simply agree to the terms.

What surprised me, was that a lady taking blood, promptly walked over and said
skip the binder.

I understand the desire to maximum blood taken from volunteers, but something
is seriously wrong, when the people taking blood encourage and purposely take
blood knowing there isn't enough time for the full required procedure to be
preformed.

------
pasbesoin
This is a principal reason society need _effective_ regulation: So that one
does not need a fucking lawyer for every daily transaction.

Practices (meaning behaviors, not medical offices) like this should be shut
down before they ever see the light of day, and confuse, inconvenience, and
compromise the safety and integrity of thousands.

------
crusso
You have to wonder where the "reasonable person" guidelines that most
jurisprudence relies upon has to do with any of the things we sign off on
today, as well as the click-through agreements.

For example, Who in the hell reads their iOS terms and conditions that they
agree to in order to see what changes Apple has made this week? Every time I
download a new app or grab upgrades, it seems that I have to agree to their 90
or 190(?) screen terms and conditions. It would be bad enough to read it the
first time, but could you imagine re-reading it every time they sent out a new
one?

I love my iPhone and I'm not about to make a moral stand by not using it or
worse by reading those damned things - but they don't sit well with me.

------
asdfdsa1234
I am routinely asked for my Social Security number by doctors and dentists,
although they don't need it and really shouldn't be using it. I decline in a
probably vain attempt to limit my ID theft/privacy risk, but I always feel
like a loony when I do.

------
Keverw
3,000 pages? Why would it need to be that long? Isn't that kinda extreme? I
don't think any average person would even want to read that, and making a copy
of that would just seem wasteful of paper... Couldn't they make it shorter?

~~~
dagw
Another theory is that the person in question had no idea what the document
looked like or where to find it, and just made up the 3000 page story in a
hope to scare off the person asking for it.

------
steamer25
Reminds me of when I refinanced my mortgage... The bank sent a 100(?) page
copy of the contract for my review prior to signing in front of a notary
public (in their employ). When arriving at the appointment they produced their
own copy that may or may not have been modified with respect to my copy,
expecting me to sign in short order.

I complied but only because I was dealing with an otherwise reputable
organization. It does seem like there's plenty of room for improvement in
these situations.

------
lgleason
The problem is that some of these documents try to intimidate patients by
adding statements that the patient cannot sue even-though they are un-
enforceable. I have also seen cases where doctors have sued patients who leave
bad comments about them on websites that allow you to rate a doctor. Bogus
malpractice suits are bad, but suing a patient for leaving a bad review is
unbelievable.

------
uslic001
Blaming the doctor for Government mandated privacy policies due to HIPAA is
not going to fix the problem. You have your wonderful legislators and the
president to thank for this mess. If you have a problem with the law complain
to your representatives to change the law. Every doctor office I have been to
has shown me their privacy policy and none are 3000 pages long.

~~~
ceejayoz
If every doctor's office you've been to has been willing to show you their
reasonable length privacy policy, surely we SHOULD be blaming this particular
doctor's office?

------
lr
Find a new doctor. I have never been to a doctor, dentist, etc., that did not
have a copy of the privacy policy taped/laminated to the clipboard!!!
Seriously, how hard can it be. She probably would have found the policy if
Sallman had told her he was going to another doctor, and he was going to tell
this doctor the reason why he left.

~~~
fffggg
You haven't visited many doctors and/or have been very lucky and/or haven't
been paying attention.

I was referred to a specialist this week for a new injury. The specialist's
office asked me to sign several standard looking forms, one of which had
almost this exact language (you agree to the terms of our privacy policy).

Then just today I was at the pharmacy and after swiping my credit card for
payment I was faced with another dialog "I have read and understood the
pharmacy's privacy policy"

It's not as simple as "find a new doctor." First of all, I'm on an HMO and my
choices are very limited -- in most non-urban areas there may not be more than
a single practice or hospital, which uses the same paperwork for all patients.

Am I supposed to put obtaining my pain medication, or potentially life-
threatening care on hold while I hunt around for a new doctor? I've seen and
signed similar policies while admitting my infant daughter to the ER with a
105 degree fever -- you ask how hard it can be? It is literally impossible.
Obtaining health care services is not like shopping for a pair of shoes, and
there are often no alternatives available.

~~~
lr
My "Seriously, how hard can it be." comment was about clipping the privacy
policy to the clipboard, not to finding a new doctor. Also, from what I can
tell, Stallman lives in an urban area. My comments were directed at him.

~~~
fffggg
I'm in an urban area as well. The hospital I took my daughter to was El Camino
Hospital in Mountain View, for example.

It's even worse for rural people.

------
jebblue
Stallman seems far out to me on some issues but this is one that irks me too.
I'm glad he wrote the entry.

------
meatpopsicle
I've had job offers that had similar language. I edited the contracts to make
them true, initialed the changes, and got the other party to sign next to my
endorsement. Once submitted, and not disputed within 72 hours, it's valid.

RMS has Eben Moglen advising him. I trust he can handle his contracts.

------
GigabyteCoin
I'm surprised the conversation hasn't turned towards "Terms and Conditions" of
websites.

As webmasters, many of us act like stallman's doctor's office every single
day. By asking clients to agree to (and making it oh so simple to skip, and oh
so daunting to read) the terms of using our websites.

------
pnathan
As a rule of thumb, I ask to see privacy policies. Usually they are not very
long ( a few pages ).

------
MarlonPro
Whatever happen to Social Contract? The worst thing that could ever happen in
this country is if we start mistrusting established institutions.

Wait... as a geek, I enjoyed the story. If I was at the same establishment as
Richard, I would be laughing my tail off!

------
gizzlon
What happens if you just sign with a fake name? Is it still binding?

They lie, you lie ..

~~~
mseebach
What you write is inconsequential, it's that fact that you do that is
important. If you can't write (not a big issue today, but has been not too
long ago), you can sign with a X.

The signature itself doesn't carry a lot of weight. Signatures given under
threat or deceit are void - which is why important stuff needs to be witnessed
or notarized.

~~~
jrs235
This. The name doesn't matter. The signing act is all that counts. Before
literate times the illiterate would "sign" by simply marking an "X" on the
signature line. If you are under duress you may certainly sign your signature
as "Under Duress", if the accepting party doesn't harm you right away at least
when you show up in court to dispute it your can point out you signed it as
such... but you better be ready to prove and show that you legitimately where
under duress or the court won't accept your claim.

~~~
tlrobinson
Related: <http://www.zug.com/pranks/credit/>

~~~
jrs235
That's awesome! I have also in the past just scribbled the crap out of a
receipt much like a 3 year old trying to coloring a solid shape with a pen as
my signature a few times. The clerks never care interesting enough. I don't
think they even know that the signing act is all that's needed. I suppose when
its only for a few bucks they prefer to avoid confrontation. However,
according to a merchants credit card agreement, the merchant is responsible
for verifying the identity of the person using the card. If they accept
unauthorized payment on a card the merchant is liable and takes the loss...
never let up or believe a merchant that says you have to pay for fraudulent
charges.

------
icodestuff
When this happened to me at an urgent care clinic, I just didn't sign that
form. Handed back the clipboard with the rest of the forms filled out. Either
no one noticed, or they didn't care.

------
spinlock
My doctor thinks I have high blood pressure because things like this really
get under my skin. I - like Stalman - have a bad habit of arguing with the
admitting nurse over stuff like this.

------
mibbitier
Very glad I'm not a pedantic extremist. Seems like a horrible life to live.

The hardest thing is picking which battles to fight. Fighting all the battles
possible isn't an effective use of ones time.

------
virg1621
If the office accepts Medicare, they are required to have those privacy
notices on hand. You could definitely report them. It's a huge violation.

------
mibbitier
Doesn't this pretty much sum up all software licenses? No one reads pages and
pages of text and then clicks "agree". They just click "agree".

------
drumdance
Contracts and legal notices are like code. They spend most of their effort
worrying about edge cases.

------
Tisca
3000 pages (1500 two-sided pages) would require a ~7" thick binder. Never seen
one, just saying.

------
jeffpersonified
So this is what the Occupy movement is so upset about!

------
antithesis
Grimmy things happen there. They ask Doctors to lie.

------
WalterBright
Kudos to Stallman for standing up to that nonsense.

------
larrys
Makes perfect sense that someone who is a binary thinker wouldn't be able to
see that it was fine to sign this document in this particular case.

------
mike626
Richard Stallman: Consummate Pain in the Dupa.

------
droithomme
I've run into the same routine with medical professionals. Also, many of these
privacy notices have a clause that they can disclose your private information
for certain reasons, then a list which includes "advertising and marketing"
purposes with other entities. When I ask about this I am always told they
would never do that, it is a standard notice and no one other than me has ever
said anything. When I refuse to sign or ask to strike that part out I am told
I am free to seek medical care elsewhere and signing the agreement to disclose
my private medical information for marketing purposes is "a federal
requirement". It's really quite disgusting and abusive.

The situation with web sites and software that have 10 to 100 page long (when
printed) EULAs or Terms of Use are a similar concept. Much software these days
makes you click a box saying you have read and understood a legal agreement
that is far more complex than any employment or IP transfer agreement I have
ever signed.

~~~
antidoh
It must have gotten to the point by now that the mere length of a privacy
policy, or EULA, is enough to convince the court that there effectively is
_no_ policy or _no_ agreement, signed, seal broken or not.

~~~
legutierr
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion#Contracts...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contracts_of_adhesion#Contracts_of_adhesion)

~~~
_delirium
Unfortunately, more recent jurisprudence in the U.S. has been chipping away at
the scrutiny given to contracts of adhesion. In overturning a California
Supreme Court decision that greatly restricted arbitration agreements when
they were made in the form of contracts of adhesion, Scalia (writing for the
court) noted that "the times in which consumer contracts were anything other
than adhesive are long past", so California's rule being limited to contracts
of adhesion was in practice so broad that it invalidated most arbitration
agreements, and therefore interfered with the Federal Arbitration Act ( _AT &T
Mobility v. Concepcion_, 2011).

------
xxiao
why does this have anything to do with hacknews?

~~~
rjb
People sign contracts in their daily lives and in a variety of situations.
Particularly hackers who are likely to work on a contract basis.

The valuable lesson here is that one should not feel shy about calling
attention to the contents of a contract nor suggesting a change.

I remember years ago I was looking for an apartment through an apartment
finding service. That wanted me to sign a contract that stated I would would
be "fined" if I were to rent ANY apartment outside their service. I quickly
called attention to it and asked them to print out a new version. They agreed.

------
planetguy
If anyone is ever wondering why nerds never rule the world, this is a perfect
example of why.

Pedantry is the brakes that the universe puts on the very smart to stop them
acquiring too much power.

~~~
VMG
nerds _do_ rule the world

~~~
JoelMcCracken
Not that I really disagree with you, but to wax platonic, maybe that the
people who both rule the world and are nerds aren't really acting as perfect
nerds as they rule the world?

------
napolux
Just an unneeded rant IMHO

~~~
biff
In a practical sense, sure, people do this everyday.

In an ethical sense, it should disturb us that we are being required to lie as
a matter of course to lead our everyday lives.

