←back to thread

Do not accept terms and conditions

(www.termsandconditions.game)
97 points halflife | 2 comments | 17 Oct 25 19:32 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
topkai22 ◴[21 Oct 25 19:27 UTC] No.45660482[source]▶
For mandatory T&Cs I'll put in the signature box "Decline", including updating the HTML page to say "decline" instead of "OK" and screenshotting it or modifying the HTTP response sent back to include riders.

I know it probably won't matter, but it's kind of fun for me.

replies(2): >>45660774 #>>45663504 #
odie5533 ◴[21 Oct 25 19:48 UTC] No.45660774[source]▶
No chance that would hold up in court. Clickwraps have been tested in courts and are fully enforceable.
replies(5): >>45660851 #>>45661248 #>>45661275 #>>45665095 #>>45676694 #
wat10000 ◴[21 Oct 25 19:54 UTC] No.45660851[source]▶
And keep in mind that (at least in the US) the opposite of "I accept the terms and conditions" is not "I get to do whatever I want," it's "I am accessing this service without authorization, which is a crime under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
replies(2): >>45661181 #>>45661294 #
pbasista ◴[21 Oct 25 20:31 UTC] No.45661294[source]▶
Are you implying that if a US "service" consists of e.g. publicly accessible HTTP endpoints, it is illegal to use these endpoints in the US without "accepting" some terms and conditions that the provider of these endpoints requires its users to accept before using them?

I do not understand how such a requirement would be legally enforceable for public endpoints.

replies(5): >>45661400 #>>45661401 #>>45661435 #>>45661470 #>>45661582 #
ralph84 ◴[21 Oct 25 20:40 UTC] No.45661401{3}[source]▶
Yes of course. Ask weev how the “it was publicly accessible” defense worked out.
replies(1): >>45663516 #
1. landdate ◴[22 Oct 25 00:20 UTC] No.45663516{4}[source]▶
That's a different situation. Those urls weren't meant for public use, and provided private information on user devices.

Furthermore, on reading the wikipedia page, his conviction was vacated.

> On April 11, 2014, the Third Circuit issued an opinion vacating Auernheimer's conviction, on the basis that the New Jersey venue was improper,[60] since neither Auernheimer, his co-conspirators, nor AT&T's servers were in New Jersey at the time of the data breach.

> While the judges did not address the substantive question on the legality of the site access, they were skeptical of the original conviction, observing that no circumvention of passwords had occurred and that only publicly accessible information was obtained

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weev#Imprisonment

replies(1): >>45676573 #
2. 010101010101 ◴[22 Oct 25 23:45 UTC] No.45676573[source]▶
If I make a list of people’s private information publicly accessible on accident without their permission and you access it which one of us is liable?