Legal Nonsense

There are myriads of legal nonsense situations we encounter every day. Somehow the most often they are related to general information technology (IT).

Definitely #1 are the EU cookie banners. David Heinemeier Hansson (DHH) - the creator of Ruby on Rails - has been perhaps more vocal about the EU Cookie Mandate (specifically cookie banners) than almost anybody else. He views them as a prime example of well-intentioned but fundamentally "stupid" and failed legislation. He points out that companies have spent billions of dollars on compliance, legal fees, and implementation, yet there has been no material improvement to user privacy. Most users simply click "Accept" to get the banner out of the way, effectively granting the very tracking permissions the law intended to curb. And the bureaucracy refuses to admit the solution didn't work.

And #2 are variety of Terms of Use (ToU) that must be accepted to do something. For example, when you first pull the battery tab on an AirTag and hold it near your iPhone, the setup process forces several points of agreement:

• The "Connect" Button: By tapping this, you begin the process of linking the hardware to your software ecosystem.
• The Registration Screen: After naming your AirTag, a screen appears showing your Apple ID email and phone number. To proceed, you must tap "Agree" or "Continue."
• And the the Find My Terms: Since the AirTag is essentially a beacon for the Find My network, by using it, you are bound by the iCloud Terms and Conditions, which cover the "Find My" service specifically.

Of course nobody reads the agreements. Same as with the EU cookie banners, people "Accept" the ToU just to get rid of the annoying screen. 

Bringing DHH here again - he pointed out that when you attach an AirTag to a cat’s collar, Apple's software still requires a "user" to click "Agree" to a massive legal contract. But if the AirTag is "for the cat," the cat is technically the user of the hardware, yet the cat cannot legally enter into a contract So he mocked the idea that for the setup to be "legally sound," you would essentially need to build a mechanism where the cat's paw physically hits the "Accept" button so that the human isn't fraudulently signing for another being.

At the same time I wonder why I don't need to go through all this nonsense when, for example, ordering a BigMac at McDonalds? Isn't the Mac connected with a "service" to fill me up (and not poison at the same time)? Why is IT special then?