|
I was pretty tied up on my day job today but I wanted to follow up on somebody’s comment that just sending some “here are my own T&C, that you agree to by sending
me your website files” bits to an enterprise’s servers might not be enough to trigger a contractual obligation on the part of the enterprise.
Ideally to deal with that, we could also generate server code that would create the option for the website to respond in some way. Revealing my technical ignorance,
I have no idea what portion of servers run open source software, but assuming the number is nontrivial, we could/should write server-side code to go along with the individual-side bits.
While a particular enterprise may not chose to run that server-side code, if it existed and was out there, freely available, their failure to run it could be
argued as an affirmative decision to ignore the individual’s (software-based) communication to the enterprise. That would be another piece of evidence in favor of the individual in the test lawsuits that would ensue… Thanks, Chris S. From: Larry Smith [mailto:
]
A couple thoughts: 1/ Create a registry where unacceptable T&C could be logged. Link it to a browser plug-in similar to WOT --web of trust https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/wot-safe-browsing-tool/?src="cb-dl-mostpopular 2/ Create new or modify existing certificate grantors with color coded icons signaling good/green, fair/yellow, bad/red icons. Create a browser plug-in that alerts you to fair/bad sites. Connect it to the Mozilla initiative: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Privacy_Icons 3/ Convince a recognized sovereign nation to legislate certain data collection rules and run traffic through proxy servers located there. This is somewhat similar to how Ireland is driving the privacy regulations in the EU -- mostly because
Facebook is located there. Larry On Jan 14, 2013, at 4:00 AM, John Harrison | PIB-d wrote:
I like Chris’s 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
_______________________________________________ From: Savage, Christopher
]">[mailto:
] From:
">
]">
[mailto:
] On Behalf Of John S James >>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 wouldn’t 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 can’t). Corporations are powerful but not omnipotent. Any other view is simply a counsel of despair. Chris S.
-- |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.