Contracts like end user license agreements (EULAs) need not necessarily be bad for individuals. For the purpose of promoting privacy or other rights, an individual might post an agreement on her web site or social networking page, or broadcast the agreement via e-mail or radio. A small business might try the same to deter a snoopy tax collector. These ideas aren't legal advice, just something to think about.
As robots come to pervade our society, legal issues will arise. Legal agreements will be one tool for regulating robot bad behavior or unwanted spying.
To legally prevent an employer from using info from a social networking site, one might post terms of use that forbid such use. The idea is not legal advice, but it is something to think about.
As robots become more common in society, questions arise about how they will be controlled. One way to regulate robot behavior is to form legal contracts with their owners.
Even if EU privacy law says IP addresses are protected personally-identifiable information, there will be instances where citizens are legally justified in processing and recording those addresses.
As robots become more common, society has time-tested legal tools to limit their deceitfulness, destructiveness or snoopiness. Contracts will be one tool for regulating robot bad behavior or unwanted spying.
TwoHundredOk: Suppose a person conspicuously posts at the top of his myspace page these terms: "If you are an employer or prospective employer, by continuing to read the content of this page, you contractually agree that you will not use this content in any employment-related evaluation of me. If you do not wish to agree to these terms, then stop reading now."
Why is an employer incapable of entering this contract? What is about contract law that prevents this contract from being formed or enforced?
Some court cases have held that the use of information from a web site in controvention of posted terms of service is illegal. http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID460 One legal theory is that such illicit use constitutes "trespass to chattels".
The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook. Some fear that this information can damage a kids employment prospects.
Heres an idea: People could post legal terms of service on their social networing pages declaring that employers and prospective employers are forbidden from looking at or copying from the pages. Such terms would be like No Trespassing signs on land. Some case law supports the notion that terms posted on a web site can restrict the right of visitors to gather information off the site.
Arguably, if an employer grabs information off of a site in violation of posted terms, and that leads to termination of an employee, then the employee could sue the employer for violating the terms of the web site.
Even if the terms are not legally binding on the employer, they could be ethically binding.
The National Retail Federation proposes the innovative solution of requiring merchants to store just "authorization code" and "truncated receipt". This is the kind of creative thinking the industry needs. However, this solution might be illegal under California's pending Assembly Bill 779. The words of AB 779 are unclear and poorly defined. For example, AB 779 would forbid a merchant from storing various data elements such as "payment verification code" and "payment verification value". The legislation does not define these terms, and my research finds no clear industry definitions for these terms. (Part of the issue is that different industry players use different words. Further, neither PCI version 1.1 nor its Glossary defines "payment verification code" and "payment verification value".) Therefore, AB 779, if the governor signs it into law, would cause confusion and roadblocks as the industry changes and technology evolves. Parties would not know whether the good data elements they want to store will later in court be interpreted as the data elements AB 779 bans from storage.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe consumers can use contract law to enhance the privacy of their health records. http://hack-igations.blogspot.com/2008/02/contracts-for-patient-privacy.html
This story is another reason why state legislatures should not mandate encryption as a data security procedure.
Michael Geist's excellent newsletter on Internet law inspired ideas for using contract law to protect privacy on social networking sites.
Contracts like end user license agreements (EULAs) need not necessarily be bad for individuals. For the purpose of promoting privacy or other rights, an individual might post an agreement on her web site or social networking page, or broadcast the agreement via e-mail or radio. A small business might try the same to deter a snoopy tax collector. These ideas aren't legal advice, just something to think about.
As robots come to pervade our society, legal issues will arise. Legal agreements will be one tool for regulating robot bad behavior or unwanted spying.
To legally prevent an employer from using info from a social networking site, one might post terms of use that forbid such use. The idea is not legal advice, but it is something to think about.
As robots become more common in society, questions arise about how they will be controlled. One way to regulate robot behavior is to form legal contracts with their owners.
Even if EU privacy law says IP addresses are protected personally-identifiable information, there will be instances where citizens are legally justified in processing and recording those addresses.
As robots become more common, society has time-tested legal tools to limit their deceitfulness, destructiveness or snoopiness. Contracts will be one tool for regulating robot bad behavior or unwanted spying.
TwoHundredOk: Suppose a person conspicuously posts at the top of his myspace page these terms: "If you are an employer or prospective employer, by continuing to read the content of this page, you contractually agree that you will not use this content in any employment-related evaluation of me. If you do not wish to agree to these terms, then stop reading now." Why is an employer incapable of entering this contract? What is about contract law that prevents this contract from being formed or enforced?
Some court cases have held that the use of information from a web site in controvention of posted terms of service is illegal. http://www.chillingeffects.org/linking/faq.cgi#QID460 One legal theory is that such illicit use constitutes "trespass to chattels".
The article notes that kids reveal much private information about themselves on myspace and facebook. Some fear that this information can damage a kids employment prospects. Heres an idea: People could post legal terms of service on their social networing pages declaring that employers and prospective employers are forbidden from looking at or copying from the pages. Such terms would be like No Trespassing signs on land. Some case law supports the notion that terms posted on a web site can restrict the right of visitors to gather information off the site. Arguably, if an employer grabs information off of a site in violation of posted terms, and that leads to termination of an employee, then the employee could sue the employer for violating the terms of the web site. Even if the terms are not legally binding on the employer, they could be ethically binding.
The National Retail Federation proposes the innovative solution of requiring merchants to store just "authorization code" and "truncated receipt". This is the kind of creative thinking the industry needs. However, this solution might be illegal under California's pending Assembly Bill 779. The words of AB 779 are unclear and poorly defined. For example, AB 779 would forbid a merchant from storing various data elements such as "payment verification code" and "payment verification value". The legislation does not define these terms, and my research finds no clear industry definitions for these terms. (Part of the issue is that different industry players use different words. Further, neither PCI version 1.1 nor its Glossary defines "payment verification code" and "payment verification value".) Therefore, AB 779, if the governor signs it into law, would cause confusion and roadblocks as the industry changes and technology evolves. Parties would not know whether the good data elements they want to store will later in court be interpreted as the data elements AB 779 bans from storage.