Terms of Service; Didn't Read (ToS;DR) is a community-driven project that simplifies and rates the terms of service and privacy policies of various websites and online services. It uses a simple grading system (Class A to Class E) to quickly inform users about potential issues regarding their rights, data usage, and other key aspects hidden within lengthy legal documents. The goal is to increase transparency and awareness, empowering users to make informed decisions about which services they choose to use based on how those services handle their data and respect user rights. ToS;DR relies on volunteer contributions to analyze and summarize these complex documents, making them easily digestible for the average internet user.
Despite significant criticism and a year-long controversy, Mozilla continues to promote and partner with OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Security expert Brian Krebs reiterates his concerns that OneRep's business model is inherently flawed and potentially harmful. He argues that OneRep benefits from the very data brokers it claims to fight, creating a conflict of interest. Further, he highlights the risk that OneRep, by collecting sensitive user data, could become a valuable target for hackers or even sell the data itself. Krebs questions Mozilla's continued endorsement of OneRep given these ongoing concerns and the lack of transparency around their partnership.
Hacker News users discuss Mozilla's continued promotion of OneRep, a paid service that removes personal information from data broker sites. Several commenters express skepticism about OneRep's effectiveness and long-term value, suggesting it's a recurring cost for a problem that requires constant vigilance. Some propose alternative solutions like Firefox's built-in Enhanced Tracking Protection or opting out of data broker sites individually, arguing these are more sustainable and potentially free. Others question Mozilla's motives for promoting a paid service, suggesting potential conflicts of interest or a decline in their commitment to user privacy. A few commenters defend OneRep, citing positive experiences or emphasizing the convenience it offers. The overall sentiment leans towards distrust of OneRep and disappointment in Mozilla's endorsement.
Reports are surfacing about new Seagate hard drives, predominantly sold through Chinese online marketplaces, exhibiting suspiciously long power-on hours and high usage statistics despite being advertised as new. This suggests potential fraud, where used or refurbished drives are being repackaged and sold as new. While Seagate has acknowledged the issue and is investigating, the extent of the problem remains unclear, with speculation that the drives might originate from cryptocurrency mining operations or other data centers. Buyers are urged to check SMART data upon receiving new Seagate drives to verify their actual usage.
Hacker News users discuss potential explanations for unexpectedly high reported runtime hours on seemingly new Seagate hard drives. Some suggest these drives are refurbished units falsely marketed as new, with inflated SMART data to disguise their prior use. Others propose the issue stems from quality control problems leading to extended testing periods at the factory, or even the use of drives in cryptocurrency mining operations before being sold as new. Several users share personal anecdotes of encountering similar issues with Seagate drives, reinforcing suspicion about the company's practices. Skepticism also arises about the reliability of SMART data as an indicator of true drive usage, with some arguing it can be manipulated. Some users suggest buying hard drives from more reputable retailers or considering alternative brands to avoid potential issues.
FreeDemandLetter.com offers a free, user-friendly platform for generating legally sound demand letters. It aims to empower individuals facing unfair treatment from businesses, landlords, or others by providing a readily accessible tool to assert their rights and seek resolution without the expense of legal counsel. The site guides users through a step-by-step process, helping them articulate their grievances, specify desired remedies, and create a professional document suitable for sending to the opposing party. It's presented as a resource for anyone feeling "shafted" and wanting to take action themselves.
HN commenters are largely skeptical of the FreeDemandLetter site's usefulness. Several point out the potential for abuse and the likelihood of receiving frivolous demand letters in return. Some question the site's ability to generate legally sound letters without attorney oversight, highlighting the complexities of varying state laws. Others express concern that the ease of sending demands could escalate minor disputes unnecessarily and clog the legal system. A few commenters offer alternative dispute resolution suggestions like contacting the business's customer service or filing complaints with consumer protection agencies. There's also debate on whether pre-written templates can effectively address nuanced situations. While some see the service as potentially empowering consumers, the prevailing sentiment leans towards caution and concern about potential misuse.
A UK gambler, identified as Chris, lost £270,000 over ten years due to manipulative marketing practices by Betfair, including “free bet” offers and personalized promotions that exploited his gambling addiction. Despite Chris expressing suicidal thoughts and self-excluding himself multiple times, Betfair continued to target him with inducements to gamble, which the UK Gambling Commission deemed unlawful. This targeted marketing contributed to Chris’s substantial financial losses and prolonged his addiction, highlighting the predatory nature of some gambling companies' tactics. The case underscores the need for stronger regulations to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitative marketing within the gambling industry.
Hacker News commenters largely express sympathy for the gambler and outrage at the predatory practices of betting companies. Several highlight the manipulative nature of "free bet" offers and the insidious design of gambling apps to maximize engagement and spending. Some discuss the effectiveness of self-exclusion lists and the need for stricter regulation of the gambling industry, including advertising restrictions and affordability checks. Others point to the broader societal issue of addiction, suggesting parallels with other industries like social media and fast food, which similarly exploit psychological vulnerabilities. A few commenters offer personal anecdotes of gambling addiction and recovery, emphasizing the devastating impact it can have on individuals and families. The overall sentiment is one of strong disapproval of the gambling industry's tactics and a call for greater protection of vulnerable individuals.
The FTC is taking action against GoDaddy for allegedly failing to adequately protect its customers' sensitive data. GoDaddy reportedly allowed unauthorized access to customer accounts on multiple occasions due to lax security practices, including failing to implement multi-factor authentication and neglecting to address known vulnerabilities. These lapses facilitated phishing attacks and other fraudulent activities, impacting millions of customers. As a result, GoDaddy will pay $21.3 million and be required to implement a comprehensive information security program subject to independent assessments for the next 20 years.
Hacker News commenters generally agree that GoDaddy's security practices are lacking, with some pointing to personal experiences of compromised sites hosted on the platform. Several express skepticism about the effectiveness of the FTC's actions, suggesting the fines are too small to incentivize real change. Some users highlight the conflict of interest inherent in GoDaddy's business model, where they profit from selling security products to fix vulnerabilities they may be partially responsible for. Others discuss the wider implications for web hosting security and the responsibility of users to implement their own protective measures. A few commenters defend GoDaddy, arguing that shared responsibility exists and users also bear the burden for securing their own sites. The discussion also touches upon the difficulty of patching WordPress vulnerabilities and the overall complexity of website security.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is finalizing a ban on Red Dye No. 3 in cosmetics and externally applied drugs, citing concerns over links to cancer. While the dye is already banned in most foods, this action expands the ban to cover uses like lipstick and eye shadow. This move follows decades of advocacy and pressure, including legal action by consumer groups, and builds upon previous FDA actions restricting the dye's usage.
Hacker News users discussed the FDA's ban of Red Dye No. 3, expressing skepticism about the extent of the risk and the FDA's motivations. Some questioned the evidence linking the dye to cancer, pointing to the high doses used in studies and suggesting the focus should be on broader dietary health. Others highlighted the difficulty of avoiding the dye, given its prevalence in various products. Several comments noted the long history of concern around Red Dye No. 3 and questioned why action was only being taken now. The political implications of the ban, particularly its association with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s campaign, were also discussed, with some suggesting it was a politically motivated decision. A few users mentioned potential alternatives and the complexities of the food coloring industry.
Summary of Comments ( 22 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43533096
HN users generally praise ToS;DR as a valuable resource for understanding the complexities of terms of service. Several highlight its usefulness for quickly assessing the key privacy and data usage implications of various online services. Some express appreciation for the project's crowd-sourced nature and its commitment to transparency. A few commenters discuss the inherent difficulties in keeping up with constantly changing terms of service and the challenges of accurately summarizing complex legal documents. One user questions the project's neutrality, while another suggests expanding its scope to include privacy policies. The overall sentiment is positive, with many viewing ToS;DR as a vital tool for navigating the increasingly complex digital landscape.
The Hacker News post titled "ToS;DR" links to the website tosdr.org, which provides simplified summaries of terms of service and privacy policies. The comments section contains a robust discussion about the website and its utility.
Several commenters express appreciation for the resource, finding it valuable for quickly understanding the implications of dense legal documents. One commenter highlights the site's usefulness for comparing services based on their respect for user privacy and rights. Another describes using it as a quick check before signing up for new services, saving them time and potential headaches.
A key point of discussion revolves around the inherent limitations of simplifying complex legal agreements. Some users acknowledge that while ToS;DR offers a helpful overview, it shouldn't replace a thorough reading of the actual terms. One commenter emphasizes that the summaries are interpretations, and it's important to understand the methodology behind these interpretations. Another cautions that reliance on summaries could lead to overlooking crucial details.
The maintainability and sustainability of the project are also addressed. One commenter expresses concern about the resources required to keep the summaries up-to-date, given the frequent changes to terms of service. Another raises the question of funding and the potential influence of external parties.
Some commenters discuss specific examples of how ToS;DR has helped them make informed decisions. One user shares their experience avoiding a service with questionable data practices after checking its rating on the site. Another recounts using the resource to compare cloud storage providers and choose one with more favorable terms.
The topic of automation in summarizing legal documents is also brought up. While acknowledging the challenges, some commenters express hope for future tools that could automatically analyze and simplify terms of service. One user suggests using AI-powered summarization techniques, while another cautions about the potential biases and inaccuracies of such methods.
Finally, a few commenters provide suggestions for improving ToS;DR. These include adding more services, incorporating user reviews, and providing more context on the ratings. One commenter proposes a feature to compare the terms of service of multiple services side-by-side.