Deeper problem: The average Western adult does not have the capacity
to agree to most legal instruments (EULAs. contracts) used around
digital technology today.
I include myself as a computer scientist who even read a bit of law at
university and has helped draft and analyse contracts. No "reasonable
person" is expected to read them. Tacit and coerced "agreement" to
patently egregious terms is already normalised, and this makes a
complete mockery of law in our culture.
At some point, if we want to rescue "the law" we must change the way
people relate to technology legally.
Oh, I totally agree! When I started consulting in the 1990s I got a NoLo Press book which clearly and helpfully explained contract terms for computer consulting. I've since had a couple of decades of reading contracts to do consulting work. My knowledge does not go outside that domain, but it's still fun to read things like how the storage unit we rented prohibits keeping farm animals in it.
By the way, HUGE shout out to the OmniGroup, who have the absolute best commercial+proprietary license agreement I've ever read. They even allow some reverse engineering, just not to avoid the licensing system. That strongly influenced my own proprietary license to allow the same.
When I have these discussion with the government and political parties, I will be asking if the high school curriculum is being updated to include more training in reading ToS, and to ask if it's really reasonable to be personally bound to terms that no one reads.
Personally I think there needs to be the equivalent of the Uniform Commercial Code, though to harmonize, standardize, and regulate app service ToS. But that's a wild idea that I cannot pursue, only wonder about.
All I can focus on is that we should not require the permission of Apple or Google to be a citizen living a simple life in Sweden.
Deeper problem: The average Western adult does not have the capacity to agree to most legal instruments (EULAs. contracts) used around digital technology today.
I include myself as a computer scientist who even read a bit of law at university and has helped draft and analyse contracts. No "reasonable person" is expected to read them. Tacit and coerced "agreement" to patently egregious terms is already normalised, and this makes a complete mockery of law in our culture.
At some point, if we want to rescue "the law" we must change the way people relate to technology legally.