I like Chriss idea about reversing
the burden of contract acceptance. But is there not a one-to-many / one-to-one problem
here ? Given that a corporation deals with thousands of individuals, it is
simply impractical for it to negotiate different terms in each case: the logic
of numbers forces it to define standard terms and conditions, which are then imposed
on customers. The remedy is for the customers to club together into a
group large enough to require / expect bespoke contracts from a corporation. Which
takes us back to consumer rights / advocacy groups (such as the Consumers
Association / Which here in the UK) and recent experiments in collaborative
purchasing.
As so often, it all comes back to the values
of the people who design the underlying infrastructure. John Naughton maintains
- in A brief history of the future - that the internet and the
web succeeded because the academics who designed them believed that openness / distribution
/ account portability and the like were all important. What we need is infrastructure
that permits and supports collaborative purchasing, working on the side of the
consumer. But I preach to the converted . . . . . for which apologies.
Regards,
John
_______________________________________________
John Harrison www.pib-d.net
mobile 07801 231 693
From: Savage,
Christopher [mailto:
]
Sent: 14 January 2013 02:20
To: John S James; ProjectVRM list
Subject: RE: Battle of the Online Forms [Was: [projectvrm]
Mobile SSL holes]
From:
">
[mailto:
] On Behalf Of John S James
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013
8:05 PM
To: ProjectVRM list; Savage,
Christopher
Subject: Re: Battle of the Online Forms [Was: [projectvrm]
Mobile SSL holes]
>>We need new ideas
and new thinking, and Christopher's proposal is a good example.<<
>>It won't work as
stated, because corporations run the government and basically everything, so in
the end the law means whatever they want it to mean. We do have a serious
problem here.<<
I wouldnt
assume we lose. Motivated people have used pre-planned litigation to
achieve social ends for decades. Sometimes you lose, but the cause
becomes sufficiently well known by virtue of the lawsuit that if political
stars align you can get something done anyway (e.g.,
the so-called Lily Ledbetter Act regarding the time you are allowed to sue for
discrimination). Sometimes you surprise the heck out of yourself
and win (e.g., Brown v. Board of Education). And
sometimes you lose first, then you win (e.g.,
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) saying that states could criminalize
private homosexual conduct, followed by Lawrence
v. Texas (2003) saying they cant).
Corporations are
powerful but not omnipotent. Any other view is simply a counsel of
despair.
Chris S.