August 02, 2009

The Great CARS Computer Takeover

I saw Allah dismiss this as just another crazy Glenn Beck conspiracy theory and didn't bother looking into it any further* but after being pointed to it by someone who's opinion I actually value, I have to say.  It IS something and it is something fucking bad.

Now, I can't get to the page where he says he saw this disclaimer but I have no doubt that he saw what he says he saw (they probably have removed it... down the memory hole) and it is very disturbing but I think it speaks to the completely fucked up nature of EULAs everywhere.  As this post I found explains, this isn't REMOTELY the first time someone claimed something as absurd as this in a EULA and I bet its just about as enforcable:

In case you didn’t know already, EULAs are always ridiculous. The Chrome EULA originally listed everything you did on the Internet as property of Google. Everything you post on Facebook is property of Facebook. Everything you do anywhere is property of Company X. It’s in nearly every piece of software you’ve ever used.

On the technical end, this specific instance is meaningless. It states that they have full access, but no, they do not have full access. Despite fear-monger central [How can Fox News be fear monger central when the left's news agencies are all saying that global warming is going to END THE FUCKING WORLD?  Oh well, nobody said liberals were logical -MP], there isn’t a secret backdoor that lets the evil computer people monitor everything you ever do and all of your files. While there are a disconcertingly high number of unpatched and improperly secured Windows machines out there, it’s not a simply just going through the list of logged in users and taking a peek at their harddrives.

And guess what, no, in general, it’s not really considered legal. The general agreement is that the nature of EULAs are unenforceable and would not stand up in court, though precedence is lacking.

Emphasis mine.

He is correct to state that just because you click "Accept" on that EULA, it doesn't physically create a method by which the government can actually DO the things they say they have a right to do any more than Google saying they own your soul in the Chrome EULA makes it so.  The woman in the clip above has clearly talked to someone that knows about computers as she drops the term "tracking cookie" but I can assure you that there is no physical means for a fucking tracking cookie to compromise your security in the way she describes.

Frankly, it would have to install some pretty intense software to even begin to have the ability to do what they say they can do and that would be pretty clearly unconstitutional. 

So, is this a big deal?  This particularly:  no.  Its about par for the course for these types of things and I'm pretty sure no EULA of this nature has every stood up in court and never would.  The problem is  if the government were to actually believe their bullshit, which they are starting to do more and more under Obama, who knows what ridiculous demands they could make of these dealers in the future. 

Again, I really doubt any of this would stand up to real judicial review and I REPEAT, AGREEING TO THE EULA WILL NOT GIVE THEM ACCESS TO ALL OF YOUR DATA PHYSICALLY but the idea that the government could use it to intimidate private citizens and businesses who are ignorant about their legal rights is a bit disturbing. 

For example, everyone knows that signing a waiver of your rights to sue before undertaking some dangerous activity is less valuable than the paper its printed on.  The only reason haunted houses and bungee jumping companies make a grand show of having you sign it is that it makes you think you can't sue so many people just don't.

Similarly, if you think the government has the right to all the data on your computer, you may not make a stink when they come for it.

So my message to you is, make a fucking stink if the government comes for anything that belongs to you.  Just because you agree to something doesn't make it binding because, as is the case here, you can't agree to a contract that is illegal.  You know, if I sign a document saying I promise to kill myself for 50 dollars I don't really have to kill myself.  Same thing.

PS - Any lawyers out there want to agree/disagree because I'm just a moron who's had some experiences with EULA and waivers and sees how it works in practice.

* - Not because Allah dismissed it but because it just sounded too ridiculous to be true. 

Posted by: Moron Pundit at 06:29 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 777 words, total size 5 kb.

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
17kb generated in CPU 0.0163, elapsed 0.1693 seconds.
61 queries taking 0.1602 seconds, 132 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.