‽
|
Read for yourself.
In 2.3, it says: Quote:
Quote:
I understand Google's need to protect itself from lawsuits, but this extends all the way to Google's homepage. Meaning, strictly speaking, if I'm reading this right, you can't do any web search unless you are able to create a contract with Google, which as a minor, you can't. Having parents or teachers sign the contract can hardly be considered a solution either. |
||
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
|
They're a US company and minors can't enter into a contract in the US. This isn't that big a deal. I'd say that a lot of companies probably have similar terms of service.
Companies want us to look at license agreements and terms of service as legally binding contracts, and companies that do so are breaking the law in the US if they knowingly allow minors to agree to their terms. This is more Google covering their ass than trying to lock minors out of their services. They know that in the US, you can be sued for anything, and it won't be long before search engines and e-mail providers are sued because they're "giving minors access" to porn or information on drugs and alcohol or exposing them to predators by allowing them to have a blog. Of course, those ideas are stupid, but Google knows that companies have lost dumber suits. I don't think there's much to this. |
quote |
is the next Chiquita
Join Date: Feb 2005
|
Seem to me they're not talking about google search but more about like gmail, calendar, spreadsheet, google group?
I say that because in section 2 they talk about how you must agree to the terms first, and I'm pretty sure I didn't agree to anything when I use Google. On semi-related track, doesn't court of law consider enforceability of any given provision? That is, if it can be shown that it is impossible to enforce a provision, it cannot be used, correct? |
quote |
On Pacific time
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Moderator's Pub
|
Quote:
Not in a million years. Well, I agree that this whole thing is a very unfortunate turn of events. But these 'terms' clearly have resulted from a raft of different lawsuits that Google obviously has been dealing with. Frankly, I don't blame them a bit. The users, or rather, the *parents* of users, have caused this to happen with their greedy, small-minded, holier-than-thou lawsuits ("Omg, my son saw a 'really' naughty video clip! Horrors!!!" ) - and now, everyone else must suffer because of these twits. I can tell you now, that if any of 'us' were the founders of Google, we would be instituting the exact same regulations, after being dragged through the courts by a few of these religious-right nitwits. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
I can't even find where I told Google my age in any of my account settings.
|
quote |
Veteran Member
|
Actually, I believe, minors can enter to contracts, they are just voidable.
|
quote |
On Pacific time
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Moderator's Pub
|
Quote:
Hmm. Sorry, but that doesn't seem to make sense to me. I can see that a 'child star', for example, might be able to 'sign' an 'agreement' to act in a tv series; but I don't think the contract would be considered a legally-binding document unless the child's adult parent/guardian co-signed. I could be completely wrong about that, but that's my sense of the matter. I *don't* think, however, that the signature of a parent would be accepted for services like Google's, where underage participation is *specifically banned* by the providers of the service. They don't *care* if a parent is willing to give permission for their kid to access Google. That same parent, down the road, would be just as likely to raise holy hell when they discover some of the things available to their kid at that site. Banning underage participation protects the site for all those over 18. As I said, Google is only doing this because they found it necessary. Those underage will probably still be able (illegally) to access stuff at the site; but the difference is that their parents have no right to sue if their kid was violating service terms by being there in defiance of rules. |
|
quote |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
|
So if someone under 18 years of age went into a shop in the US and bought something it wouldn't be considered a legally binding contract?
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Near Indianapolis
|
|
quote |
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472 Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
|
Quote:
Unless Google adds credit card verification or something like that, it's clear to me this is nothing more than a legal barrier to protect their assets. Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.” Visit our archived Minecraft world! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it. |
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
Thread Tools | |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Services in Mac OS X | RacerX | General Discussion | 5 | 2006-05-25 15:38 |