[PythonicAlpha]

That is the point. People are tricked into this and most of them did not read the terms or just ignored them.

But Microsoft is on the secure side, because you confirmed the terms -- and not many judges in the world will blame Microsoft in this situation, even when you argue, that you haven't read the terms. When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters).

[Silhouette]

When you sign an other contract, you also can not argue, you haven't read the terms (even when they are in very small letters).

Sure you can. And if it's a contract of adhesion between a business and a consumer where the terms are unreasonably loaded in favour of the business, you might actually win, too.

(I am not a lawyer, your jurisdiction may vary, etc. I have however worked with real lawyers on real terms and conditions documents, and have been consistently advised that it's preferable to avoid surprising terms and that if any do need to go in then they should be early and prominent to maximise the chance of them standing up if anything ever got to court.)

[PythonicAlpha]

Sure, you can try with any contract -- and go to trial.

But I have seen worse contracts and the companies are coming threw with it most of the time, but maybe in your country the juristic system is better and not the size of the company or the number of lawyers are important.

I for my side, would not bet on winning a trial against Microsoft in such a case.

[Silhouette]

In reality it probably wouldn't be an individual customer against Microsoft anyway. It would be someone like the national data protection regulator or European authorities, acting on behalf of the population as a whole, and they would probably be looking at the actual behaviour of Microsoft and whether it violated data protection laws. If Microsoft attempted to argue that weasel words in their terms permitted their behaviour but the evidence showed that in the real world users didn't know or understand the implications, I doubt that would work out very well for Microsoft. Those authorities are generally more pro-privacy than the US, and they have handed serious financial penalties to big tech companies before.

[PythonicAlpha]

It would be nice, if it would be that easy.

See my answer here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10055866

Can you name examples, where big corporations got "Serious" penalties for privacy issues? I don't know any. I only know, that in Germany, we always say, how important the issue is, but at least under our current government, privacy issues and the officers are laughed at by the big politicians. They might say different, but that is the reality (in Germany, everything is double-correct, until you look under the carpet!).

The trouble is, besides the juristic impact here, when you go on this level, it gets political and many influential German politicians don't want to mess with the US and with big corporations (their motto: "Sozial ist, was Arbeit schafft!"), particularly in the current government! And don't think, that the EU is an independent entity -- the German government likes to make it look as such, but in reality, the EU does nothing, what the governments of the most influential countries do not want.

(I also don't think, that the current German government will change soon -- it is a mess!)

[Silhouette]

Can you name examples, where big corporations got "Serious" penalties for privacy issues?

Not yet, but I would argue that's because organisations like Google and Facebook have changed their behaviour when challenged to avoid things going that far.

However, Europe has imposed heavy fines in the past on the likes of Microsoft, and various nations in Europe have also formally investigated and taken legal action against major tech firms in relation to privacy concerns. For example, see http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-06/facebook-p..., which is about an ongoing investigation.

[PythonicAlpha]

Right. Investigations. But most of them are settled with a rather small fee for the corporations or with some small changes in the behavior (like the browser selection screen, that already was changed again in Windows 10, as much I heard).

That are the cosmetic changes I mentioned. I know nobody in the EU, that really wants to mess to much with the big corporations (I mean, the really big ones). And privacy concerns are mostly laughed at -- in Germany, the government itself even forces new privacy troubles without need on the people (like the "smart meter" or the "health card").

[Lawtonfogle]

Uninformed consent is not consent. This needs to be applied to the business world and all other legal contracts.

[PythonicAlpha]

You are right. But I have seen so many cases, where companies come away with it.

This is something, that definitively should be changed in our legal systems, but they are far from perfect, even when there are sometimes some honorable judges around (much to seldom in my country!).

[RaleyField]

> Uninformed consent is not consent.

Better way of arguing for your point would be to say that you cannot consent if you are uninformed, but if you were presented with the privacy statement then whose fault is it that you are uninformed and still went ahead agreeing to something you don't understand. Do you also take candies from strangers? I don't think what Microsoft is doing is ethical, but then I think it would be much more unethical for us to take Microsoft's right to free speech. I think you are arguing for nanny state.

[Lawtonfogle]

>whose fault is it that you are uninformed and still went ahead agreeing to something you don't understand.

There is no practical way for the average person to have a significant enough understanding of privacy policies due to the wordings and the 'as provided by law' type clauses that require understanding of even more complex documents (and possible even court cases). That people agree to it anyways is because it cuts one out of so much to not agree to privacy policies. Even going to the doctor involves a policy that includes 'as allowed by law' that makes it very difficult for anyone other than a specialized lawyer to understand.

Microsoft knows that people aren't understanding this and using it to their advantage. A ban on taking advantage of this is no more a nanny state than already existing bans on many cons and scams (those that don't rely on lying but on confusion and misleading others). For example, I can't hand out checks for $100 that include really nasty terms of repayment ($200 due in one month, else I get to seize any items I wish from your possession). This isn't a ban on any freedom of my own except my freedom to take advantage of others.

To relate it to your example of taking candies form strangers, if I'm handing out bad candies and someone else is eating them, who is at fault? Even if they should know better (which with these being complex legal candies that means most people shouldn't know better) I'm still at fault for handing out bad candies.

[RaleyField]

> There is no practical way for the average person

And I'm arguing that this should not be a concern. If you do not understand something then you shouldn't agree to it. People should ask their lawyer, consult Microsoft, consult websites dedicated to such issues, etc. Unless you can prove that privacy statement is misleading to laypeople then it should be user's fault for not bothering to inform themselves.

> A ban on taking advantage of this is no more a nanny state than already existing bans on many cons and scams

I'm arguing for this (even though I severely disagree with choices Microsoft made) because it's a slippery slope that leads to precedents for government to introduce regulations that clearly aren't in public's interest.

Software as protected speech was established at the end of crypto wars, when encryption programs stopped being classified as munitions and restriction on strength of cryptography were lifted.

If we let Microsoft not exercise their right it might set a trend for the governments to go back in other areas like cryptography, using old scare tactics to reverse what was achieved before in the name public's interest by appealing to the fear of terrorism. You fight for Windows to not be compromised for its users, but it could be that this fight would lead to other curtailments of speech that would not only paradoxically harm Windows but any other reasonable alternative that we currently have.