[II2II]

On the first day of a university course, several hundred students asked to line up and sign a two page agreement in order to access computing resources necessary for the course. When my turn came, I asked where I could read it without holding up the entire line. They were shocked that anyone would ask such a question, though they provided me a space to read over the document.

If blindly signing a contract one of the first things that computer science students encounter, I'm not surprised that they simply put up those ToS without the expectation that they will be read.

[joekrill]

It's absolutely astounding to me how many folks blindly sign legal documents. Especially employment related. Whenever I've pushed back on an employment contract, NDA, or similar it's always met with sudden confusion - as though this has never happened before. In fairness, it's almost never met with negatively. But it shows that no one else has ever bothered to question it. And when I talk to colleagues I definitely get the sense that no one ever really reads these things or questions them.

[CodeGlitch]

The problem arises especially when the document is written in legalese. I also feel like I'm not really qualified to understand these documents - they are generally written for people who have the appropriate qualifications.

For example when buying a property in the UK, the soliciter will be the one parses the legal documents. It's crazy to think that normal people are expected to fully understand these, and it doesn't surpise me when they just blindly sign them. At the end of the day they want the thing and carry on with their lives - throwing caution to the wind.

[mech422]

I feel this is one of the major problems with most TOSs...

You generally don't have a lawyer around to explain every TOS you come across, so people ignore them and hope for the best.

Hmm - I wonder if there would be a niche for a website that explains specific, common TOSs in easy to understand terms?

[CodeGlitch]

We've all been hearing about machine learning algorithms that can parse legalese and pull out the important bits given parameters of interest. So certainly a possibility.

HN make it so!

[mech422]

Does that mean we'll sprout a generation of "Legal SEO" lawyers that try to game the algorithms ? :-P

[lcall]

https://tosdr.org/en/frontpage

https://www.thewindowsclub.com/summary-of-terms-and-conditio...

And elsewhere in this discussion is a list of prior such discussions that might mention others (you could Ctrl+F for my username here to find it, I replied to the list).

[lcall]

Also possibly of interest, though I haven't even read their site carefully: https://stonecutters.law/

They say "Stonecutters publishes legal forms and clauses for other legal craftsmen to incorporate by reference."

[asdfasgasdgasdg]

Tbh I don't find tos very hard to understand. They are akin to programming for the law. And generally speaking they just tell you what you should already know about the terms under which you use the service, so that you can't sue the service for absurd things.

For the sake of demonstration, I just went and read the first seven sections of Personal Capital's TOU. Not a single surprise in there, so far. To give one example, section 5 just says that for the sake of displaying the information you are agreeing that personal capital can retrieve on your behalf, personal capital has your authorization to act legally on your behalf. This is to prevent some idiot from suing them for fetching account info that said idiot inputted into personal capital. Another section says, hey, we aren't responsible for mistakes you make with your investments, even if you base your decisions on the information we show to you. Which is a perfectly reasonable thing as well -- you literally could not run a service like this otherwise.

[throwaway2048]

Reminds me of a recent change in the privacy policy of my bank, it spends pages and pages talking about "getting my consent to use my private information" in all sorts of contexts strongly implying they will ask me before selling off my information, then later, in a different part it defines my "usage of the service" as consent for them to use said info.

[joekrill]

Well that's when you get a lawyer to review it for you. I realize there is a cost involved here, but when you're talking about something like this it's usually well worth it - if only to know exactly what you are agreeing to.

[Aeolun]

> throwing caution to the wind

If people were regularly burned by these legal documents then maybe, but I expect that literally nobody or their friends ever had any issues, so most people will accept that that applies for them too.

[de_nied]

That's why documents written in legalese always define the words used before they start using them. At least in the U.S.

[pjmlp]

In Germany it is even considered another language, kind of.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verwaltungssprache

Which kind of translates into Officialese as per Wikipedia.

Defining words is not enough, the grammar and sentence formulation are also very convoluted in regards to the common language.

[de_nied]

Simply from my own experience in dealing with U.S. legal documents, specifically U.S. law, it is usually enough to Google the terms and understand the meaning. If the phrasing is convoluted to the point of needing Academics explain it, then it's usually defined by a court ruling on its meaning.

Terms of service is generally easier to read because it's more simplified and typically doesn't use Latin or existing legal language that is uncommon to the layperson.

Of course, this is still in the context of U.S. law and the English/Latin language.

[pjmlp]

Unfortunately it isn't that simple, that only works for very basic documents, imagine a 50 A4 page contract written that way.

[lcall]

Happens in doctors offices too. Now I try to request all paperwork in advance so I can read. At one (where I thought highly of the doctor who seemed very kind and competent), 2 people in the front office insisted to me that the "other document" to which the main one referred and said I was also agreeing was the same document that had the reference. After I refused to sign, one left and the other made a phone call to find the real "other" doc.

I think (though am not an attorney, so not sure what a really honest, articulate, kind one would say) that if attorneys who wrote these long, difficult agreements applied honesty and the Golden Rule, they would start reading them themselves more often in general life, and they would word them so that their target audience would have an easy time understanding them, etc etc. But the executives have other things on their minds I suppose, and don't push for this (or care...?). (maybe this is one of my pet peeves--sometimes I wonder if it just makes life harder for honest people). But I still think being honest and kind is totally worth it in the long run. Wrote more elsewhere on that.

[perl4ever]

Last time I went to urgent care/the ER, I was told to sign an electronic pad repeatedly, and no document was provided at all, on paper or screen. It was just verbal, sign for this, sign for that.

[lcall]

Yeah. Maybe they get used to the majority of patients who don't want to read things, and systems even reflect that. I watch the displayed fine print just in case it actually says something, but maybe I should ask more questions.

Once when at a nearby hospital to just get a blood sample drawn, the documents to sign including those by reference were ~11 pages. Fortunately they weren't busy, & I tried to apologize for taking so long & explained I felt it was a matter of honesty to know what I was agreeing to, and they printed things for me and let me cross some of it out. But I found that another nearby hospital system (a regional nonprofit w/ good reputation) had a 2-page agreement, and I go there now even though it is slightly farther for us. (It unfortunately seems like on medical stuff, it helps to get as much as possible covered before the visit, also for financial questions, making sure everyone is in-network etc etc, so I am now trying to remember to ask for everything in advance sometimes.)

[Aeolun]

I think part of it is coming from a country where any ‘unreasonable’ or ‘unfair’ conditions will almost certainly be considered nonapplicable in court (if it ever came to that).

[brightball]

Same. I’ve never seen anyone balk. If anything it shows attention to detail.

[mlthoughts2018]

When I have pushed back on the same topic, it usually is met with negativity. I believe recruiting and hiring staff have some incentives to treat you like you’re crazy if you want special provisions or need clarification on complex terms.

In my career, I’ve negotiated

- a severance package in my offer letter from a company that said, “we don’t offer severance packages as a matter of policy.”

- a sign on bonus from a company that said, “we don’t offer sign-on bonuses as a matter of policy.”

- a longer expiration period for startup options, as well as partial acceleration of vesting in the case of a significant liquidity event, from a company that said, “we can’t modify our standard equity agreement papers.”

- immediate full vesting of matched 401(k) contributions from a company that said, “our policy is that matched contributions only vest after 1 year.”

- ability to expense my own Linux workstation, which I could keep, in the offer letter, from a company that said employees are only allowed to be issued Mac laptops.

- explicit extra section in the offer letter stating that any IP created by me using only my personal equipment and personal time was my sole property and was explicitly not subject to any part of the employee handbook dealing with ownership of IP.

In all these cases, the conversation usually started out with me being gaslit about all this being impossible or my expectations being crazy. But after sticking to my requirements, eventually it normalized out into a sincere discussion.

I should add, all these examples came from very large companies except for the case of the options expiry and acceleration.

I also gave a hard “no” to many companies over the years that wouldn’t negotiate on topics like these, and I can say I don’t regret it one bit. There’s never been a case where I said no to a job offer over inflexibility on all these topics and then later regretted it.

[sizzle]

How did you do this without scaring the hiring manager? Assuming the hiring manager has to vouch for you to their bosses to get the negotiated terms, you must have a very sought after skill set?

Or is this purely negotiating with HR and/or legal for contract terms concessions without hiring manager as it doesn't come from their budget?

[mlthoughts2018]

The first thing you have to realize is that the hiring apparatus in the company is bureaucratic. They aren’t scared, mad, judgmental, whatever. They are going to be thinking more about what’s for lunch and whether they can cut out early next Friday than about your candidate profile or negotiation.

As long as you are polite but firm, they aren’t likely to think anything. They’ll just figure they either like your profile and want to work with you, or they’ll figure they know they can’t meet your requests.

Always present flexibility even if you aren’t actually flexible. In theory, if they cannot give a severance package, maybe they can give a much higher sign on bonus, or something else you want. Let them know what’s important to you, but that if there are other ways to address what you’re looking for, you’re open to hear it and think about it.

Once you’re at the stage of making concrete requests, don’t be vague and don’t accept vague alternatives. Always ask for concrete alternatives and once it is stated, always take time to think about it offline, always. That way if you decide you’re not actually flexible, you have breathing room to process your decision and respond.

You should also project confidence about your worth and why you are asking for something.

For example, for negotiating a severance package, you should be very clear about it. In my case, that mattered to me because I was relocating to a new area and at the same time I was switching from individual contributor to manager. I felt the risk of the local job market for an inexperienced manager was high, so if the company I was joining would have restructuring or sudden cuts and I am laid off, the money to float myself in the new region would be high. To feel comfortable about this, I just wanted to know for sure if that kind of change was coming, I would have X months of salary as a cushion.

If a recruiter or hiring manager is too immature to appreciate this as a sincere concern / request of a candidate, and would punish me just for asking either by acting like severance is a taboo way to protect insecurities of being fired or acting like I’m a prima donna, well that makes the decision to walk away pretty obvious for me.

The main thing is just remember they don’t owe you any special features in a job offer and they absolutely won’t offer them unless you ask and make it clear it matters to you.

But you also don’t owe them anything either, certainly not any expectation about being “too fussy” or “scaring” them. Nobody’s going to look out for what you want as a candidate except you.

As long as you’re polite but firm, and you make clear asks and require clear commitments, you should feel completely confident asking for anything you want. Whether you’re willing to compromise or you need to say “no,” you’ll be doing yourself a big favor.

[letitbeirie]

Do you mind if I ask what you do exactly? It would be interesting to know whether:

- you have a specific skillset and experience that give you a negotiating position not enjoyed by most, or

- most developers are significantly underestimating their negotiating position

[toast0]

Some of those negotiations seem like a pretty hard bargain (can they give different 401k vesting terms to some employees and not others?), but your position when you've got an offer is pretty strong.

They've invested a significant amount of time finding you, and assuming you're good at what you do, it's going to take a lot to find another acceptable candidate.

Nobody wants to have to report that the candidate didn't start because of something relatively minor, so restart the hiring machine.

[LadyCailin]

Just out of curiosity, what happened if you declined to sign? You flunk out of the course? Reading the TOS is pointless anyways, when declining them is very problematic for you.

[II2II]

I really don't know what would have happened. There was nothing worth objecting to, though it was certainly worth reading to understand the boundaries while accessing their system (i.e. it was for course use). Even if there was anything objectionable, the student may have to drop the course (rather than flunk it).

Overall, I view blindly signing ToS as the foundation for the situation we see today: these agreements exist in cases where they probably should not or include terms that are increasingly detrimental to the recipient. There is a bit of a difference between outlining the rules for accessing a service and granting a service the right to sell your data or stripping away avenues for legal recourse.

[ethbr0]

In university, I was involved in a situation that still haunts me. We had a couple Linux servers allocated to our multi-year project design team. I ended up as de facto systems admin.

One of the younger team members asked me if he could use one of the machines to compile homework for another course. Given that the machine wasn't critical, I said certainly! (Applauding his initiative)

A week later, the department sys admin sends me an email, noting our server pegged cpu and men utilization briefly and asking if we required additional resources.

I responded, laid out exactly what happened (omitting the student's name), thank him for the attention, and tell him we don't need anything.

At which point he drops me from the email chain, writes to the professor in charge of our group (a guy doing some really interesting stuff in AUUVs, and only teaching undergrads out of the kindness of his heart), and launches into a tirade about students abusing system resources, unfair advantages, violations of the honor code, academic integrity cases, etc.

After discussing it with my professor, I send the admin an email apologizing for the misunderstanding, will make sure it won't happen again, and would appreciate if he raised concerns with me first next time.

To which professor receives another email about "not letting students contact him about faculty matters." My prof told me to stop emailing him, which I wisely listened to. The student's name was never shared, and no actions were taken.

But my takeaway was that kid almost had his academic career (and potentially his future) trashed, because someone decided to get a bee in their bonnet over an interpretation of rules.

... As a happy ending, I happened to know the BOFH in social circles outside of academia (doubt he linked me to my school self) and subsequent to this interaction his marriage collapsed, he moved to his farm, and eventually left university and took up an in depth study of the copious and frequent application of alcohol. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...

[Wowfunhappy]

> To which professor receives another email about "not letting students contact him about faculty matters."

This is the part of the story where I really did a double take. This sys admin originally emailed you about cpu utilization, right? It's not like you didn't have their email or hadn't been in contact before.

[Hnrobert42]

What you are describing is a contact of adhesion. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/adhesion_contract_%28contrac...

[aflag]

I don't think reading it is pointless, even if you are very likely to accept all but the most draconian of terms. You still need to know the rules, otherwise, you may inadvertently break them, which could have very harmful consequences.

[dfxm12]

Yeah, too many times you don't get to read the TOS of something until after you've already signed up/paid.

I'm sure you could bring up legal action, but everyone knows that's cost prohibitive...

[alexfromapex]

I had a quiz in middle school where the end of the directions said to ignore everything and put down your pencil. Really wish all schools taught this.

[nemo44x]

It’s good training for test taking in general. Read every question before starting. Then solve the ones you find easy first.

Many people are “bad at tests” because they get stuck on something, panic, waste all their time and then blow the test.

[guitarbill]

I used to do the opposite, start from the back where the bigger/harder questions where when I was still fresh, and work backwards(?) to the easier questions with fewer points. Agree that leaving a question half finished with enough space to come back to it and finish it is also a good idea, instead of getting stuck and demoralised.

In any case, I think it's fair to say that reading all of the test, thinking about how you want to approach it, and not just blindly following the ordering provided is going to be better than a naive approach - no matter what ordering is chosen.

[nemo44x]

Indeed - just make sure you read it all first and then solve whatever you find most comfortable solving.

For me I found that doing the ones I knew immediately how to solve first and then going back to the ones I didn’t quite get at first made those easier when revisiting. I think maybe getting my brain into context made referencing that information possible and possibly by reading them and moving on, it gave my brain some time to begin processing them. No idea though.

Same idea applies to IKEA assembly. Read all the directions first.

[WindyLakeReturn]

I had a similar quiz. I never really liked them because it always bothered me why I was expected to follow the last instruction first, regardless of what it said. Even if it said to ignore the previous instructions, I would only be following it once I reached it, which would mean all other instructions had been followed. Nothing in the initial rules that said to read all instructions gave any indication that one should pick and choose which instructions to follow or that you should do them in reverse order.

Perhaps this was the moment when I first started the path to being a programmer.

[m463]

> I never really liked them because it always bothered me why I was expected to follow the last instruction first, regardless of what it said.

Well then you should be bothered by lots of legal documents/terms of service, many of which say...

"blah blah blah. if you live in california you have specific rights"

A friend told me of a lawyer he knew that would cross out the binding arbitration clause in all legal documents he signed. In california you have the right to opt-out of binding arbitration.

So the last bit of many documents frequently nullifies other things above.

[eitland]

> I never really liked them because it always bothered me why I was expected to follow the last instruction first, regardless of what it said.

I had a similar one, in fairness it started with something along the lines of: "read these instructions completely before you start".

[WindyLakeReturn]

Yes, but you still start with the first instruction.

It is like a function that changes behavior after the first time in executes. The first execution will still do what it says. You have to explicitly call out that you want the last step that modifies the previous steps to be ran first.

It is like when I help someone learning to code and they question why their statement on line 30 doesn't change what is happening on line 15.

[vsareto]

It's the same thing with leases and technology.

This apartment has smart home things (hub, A/C, smart lock) that's controlled through a mobile app. The lease says you're responsible for supplying the internet for the devices and calling the company when the app or devices are not working, but the apartment complex insists they take care of it (they really do, they didn't lie). But there were no solid answers on why this section was in the lease and it was completely false as I haven't had to support or provide internet for any of the devices.

This led to: "I don't want to support it, I'd rather remove them and just use a physical key" but they weren't able to remove them, nor remove the section from the lease.

I get it, they aren't lawyers, but it's weird when you read it and realize how different things are in the real world compared to some of the agreements we all sign (completely the opposite, in this case). If it came to it, I have no doubt I'd still be held to the terms of the lease though.

[banana_giraffe]

When I went into sing my Mortgage Loan, the officer pointed at the X's and said "sign here, here, and initial here, here, and here"

I then turned to page one and started reading.

The conversation that ensued, where they tried to get me to sign without "wasting their time" was amazing. I get I'm unusual for wanted to read what I'm signing, but I can't have been the only one. I do suspect I was one of the rare ones that they couldn't bully into signing quickly.

[lcall]

I do the same kinds of things, but sometimes it helps warn them in a friendly way before scheduling the appointment. :) Often, I try to request the papers etc in advance, to make it easier on all of us, then I can take my time, ask questions, etc.

[banana_giraffe]

As I said, it was a bizarre conversation. I did ask if I could reschedule if time was tight right now. I totally get it if they had an appointment, even something not work related, that I'm putting at risk.

They were having none of it. It's possible I just got a jerk.

[lcall]

Yah, it is hard. Sometimes I thought afterward that I was a jerk (or someone else was). Live, learn, practice as we go sometimes. Frankly I applaud you for efforts at being honest and reasonable at the same time -- it is not a skill we are born with, it would seem...?

[perl4ever]

My instinct in that situation was to talk to the person about what I was reading when I felt they were getting impatient. Not let them have a conversation about hurrying up.

[dragonsngoblins]

A mortgage is a lot of money, how can so many people not be reading them?

[m463]

They are worried they won't be lent the money and the purchase will fall though.

[hnarn]

I was kind of hoping that this was going to end along the lines of “I was actually studying law and the professor then called us out on the importance of reading contracts that you sign, and proceeded to list all the ridiculous things we had just agreed to”.

Too bad.

[lcall]

I knew a pleasant fellow, a FLOSS maintainer somewhat well known at least in his niche, who provided wifi to neighbors, but they had to click through an agreement first. Only one read it. Buried in the text, experimentally, it said they had to give him all their possessions upon request. (He isn't the type to do it, but wanted to know who read it.)

[m463]

What about objecting and still participating?