There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more. As Louis Rossman keeps pointing out, most of them now include the ability for them to change terms at any time. That's basically the null contract.

Since the legal system has once again failed to protect users from corporations, it's up to users to use technical means for self defense.

▲

kolinko 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Depends on jurisdiction, just because someone wrote something in a contract doesn’t mean it’s binding.

In Poland/EU we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void. And I think these can be enacted retroactively - when corporations invent new shady clauses, government steps in and tells them these are invalid.

This helps to even out the consumer-corporation field.

▲

hvb2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> we have an (ever growing) list of forbidden clauses that even when written and signed by consumer are null and void

I'm pretty sure that's true almost everywhere. Law beats contract. The real question is how strong the laws are. In the US not so much because of small government and stuff, especially in red states.

▲

washelterskelte 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The law matters very little when enforcing it in court often means a multiyear lawsuit against an opponent which employs an army of attorneys, has effectively unlimited amounts of money, will likely cost you ruinious sums of money, and for an outcome that's far from guaranteed.

	▲	nobody9999 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>The law matters very little when enforcing it in court often means a multiyear lawsuit against an opponent which employs an army of attorneys, has effectively unlimited amounts of money, will likely cost you ruinious sums of money, and for an outcome that's far from guaranteed. Or when you can't even enforce anything in court as you've already given up your right to spend all your money suing, as binding arbitration is the required and only mechanism to "resolve disputes." To make it extra fair, the corporation pays the arbitration firm for their "objective" decisions and not you. What could go wrong?

▲

hatefulheart 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That’s great! Because then you’re left with the simple task of raising it up with the government.

▲

layer8 5 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s actually the judiciary you’d bring it up with, I believe.

	▲	soraminazuki 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The judiciary is a branch of government. But more crucially, some countries have better consumer protection agencies, eliminating the need for people to go through costly court battles for common sense stuff.

▲

airstrike 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Interestingly, in Brazil and I'm sure in some other legislations, those contracts are essentially void because there's a presumption the average person does not have the time, patience, or ability to understand every clause—so they are by definition unable to agree to their terms.

I'd love to have a similar standard applied in the US but I'm not holding my breath.

▲

oh_my_goodness 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>There is absolutely no reason to read those contracts any more

For another perspective, check out the comment you're replying to.

▲

DaSHacka 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At the very least, you can be sure they'll never change the terms of the agreement to be more beneficial for you, though.

So just treat it as a best case scenario, knowing that it can get even worse.

▲

pnt12 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just assume the worse then, save yourself some time.

	▲	DaSHacka 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well yeah, that's kinda the idea, but sometimes it's nice to know what 'the worst' will entail

▲

georgemcbay 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

At this point every EULA or TOS change should begin with the heading:

We Are Altering The Deal. Pray We Don't Alter It Any Further

▲

imglorp 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

PS, my technical means are keeping my TV off the internet.

▲

sandworm101 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Which doesnt work. LG tvs will scan for availible networks. Someone setting up a new router within range briefly disables encryption and "your" tv will jump on that network and transmit all the stored data.

It is tinfoil hats time, at least for LG tvs.

▲

switchbak 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess you could remove the wifi antenna, or otherwise brick the wifi reception ability (faraday cage, lead block, etc). Or - just boycott LG. I'll never buy any of that corporate espionage nonsense, ever.

Also: the US intelligence agencies used Echelon ages ago to monitor what vast swaths of innocent people were up to. I think it's sensible to presume they've got their hooks into these devices too.

▲

c22 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Give it a network, but don't allow that network to access the internet.

	▲	kwarcode 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If it can't phone home, it's not connected. A technical solution would presumably spoof the spaff but with E2EE and DoH is it possible? So then what, hacking firmware? I guess then TVs get a hard lifespan limit.