Is it a sin to click a box saying that you have read the TOS if you haven't

[jmj603]

Thank You JimG!!!
The sniping at each resulting from nit-picking is worse than the original issue, IMO.

Hey, we’re all on the thread wondering if it’s a sin to click the box saying that you read the TOS when you didn’t. It’s not like we’re walking into someone else’s house and inspecting TOS’s for signs of having been read. The Law of God is being attacked (on catholic.com!) by the proudly unscrupulous, and it is imperative to defend it, like Jesus did when He told the Pharisees that tithing on mint and cumin was good.

 

[jmcrae]

Hey, we’re all on the thread wondering if it’s a sin to click the box saying that you read the TOS when you didn’t. It’s not like we’re walking into someone else’s house and inspecting TOS’s for signs of having been read. The Law of God is being attacked (on catholic.com!) by the proudly unscrupulous, and it is imperative to defend it, like Jesus did when He told the Pharisees that tithing on mint and cumin was good.

Most people when they click on the TOS to get to the next page are at work, and they need the product or service that they are downloading in order to complete their next task - usually, they have resorted to downloading something as a last resort, because their task is due to be completed - their customer is arriving in a few moments, and is expecting to see the task completed - so, in that situation (which is the usual situation, in my experience) - the person clicks on the TOS without reading it, but also without intending to do anything illegal to or with the product - they just need to use it to get to the next step of their own work. They may in fact never have to use that product again; they just happen to need it that once.

Secondly, anything that the manufacturer of the product needs you to know will be presented in large type and in plain English; it won’t be in the gobbledegook portion of the TOS.

Third, having inserted TOS of my own into products that I have made, due to various software regulations, I have to admit that I read the thing once, when we first got it, but I don’t (at this particular moment) even know what my own TOS says, and I certainly don’t care whether my own end users actually read the thing all the way through before installing our products. All it does is, if we catch someone doing something illegal with our software products, we have legal recourse because we can say, “Look, you knew this was illegal because you clicked on the TOS when you installed the product on your computer system,” and they would say, “Well, yes,” and then we can get them to stop doing the illegal thing with our product, and get back any damages that may have been incurred.

So far, that’s actually never happened. We only ever had one situation that even came close to that - I had someone claim that our product was “defective,” and she was trying to get her money back, but a few questions showed that what actually happened was that someone had given her a copy of one of our CDs (she won it in a draw of some kind, apparently), and she didn’t own a computer, so she thought she could turn it in to us for cash. Once I figured out that she had never installed it on a computer of any kind, I told her, “No, we don’t give refunds for software, sorry -” and that was that.

Again, I would recommend skimming through the TOS to get the gist of it, and to refresh your memory about what kinds of things you are allowed to do with computer software (and to avoid any Rumplestiltskin clauses), and to remember what you’re not allowed to do, but you certainly don’t need to remember it in any detail - nobody expects anyone to do that.

The majority of TOS say pretty much exactly the same thing, anyway, since the purpose of them is to make sure that end users know how to comply with international copyright law. For the majority of people, it isn’t even an issue.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Thank you for your clear explanation of how many of us work and the issue we know we are dealing with, and the time constraints we have. By the way, I also ripped the mattress tag off. Is that a sin too?

 

[Syele]

Thank you for your clear explanation of how many of us work and the issue we know we are dealing with, and the time constraints we have. By the way, I also ripped the mattress tag off. Is that a sin too?

Only a sin if you are a retailer who is bound by law to leave it on there for the customer, or if you made some kind of freaky “I promise not to rip tags off” kind of promise.

 

[JimG]

Ritual ablutions for laymen was not part of Divine law, but a later tradition added by the Pharisaic interpreters.

And reading the TOS is a part of Divine Law?

Jesus hates sin, and would never say, “it’s only a minor matter–a venial sin at most. Let it go.” Jesus never sinned in his whole life.

And yet he did violate what the scribes and pharisees considered sin–in their view he violated the sabbath, he was not scrupulous in following the ablutions and other laws. No, in deviating from strict observance he really did not sin. My point is simply that in calling such things as this sins, we really make a mockery of what sin is.

Now will everyone who clicks the box without reading make a point to confess it in the confessional? As well as all those who sign tax returns without reading them. Or sign mortgage documents without reading them? Soon, our priests will be begging for mercy.

Honestly, I consider scrupulosity to be not simple overzealousness, but a real spiritual danger.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

You are right Jim. But what did that Jesus know? Wasn’t he the One who said pulling a donkey out of a ditch on the Sabbath was not breaking God’s law, but merely common sense? I’m sure He’d probably think clicking the TOS button was like pulling the donkey out of the ditch.

 

[jmj603]

And reading the TOS is a part of Divine Law?

Telling the truth is.

And yet he did violate what the scribes and pharisees considered sin–in their view he violated the sabbath, he was not scrupulous in following the ablutions and other laws. No, in deviating from strict observance he really did not sin.

The lack of sin wasn’t a lack of “strict observance”. Remember what he said, you should tithe on mint. It was allowed under the Law to heal on the Sabbath, but the Pharisees distorted the Law because of threats to their own power. It was allowed under the Law for laymen to eat without washing, but again the Pharisees distorted it, calling themselves a “priestly people”.

Just because I say something is a sin doesn’t make it a sin. The opposite is also true (and, sadly, quite prevalent here on Catholic Answers Forum): just because some people say something isn’t a sin (like the Pharisees did when the crucified Jesus) doesn’t make it not a sin. The Divine Law is written into all our hearts. When we are attached to some sin, and not fully committed to Jesus, sometimes we get angry and lash out at others when our conscience convicts us, though the proper response is conversion. It certainly doesn’t go well with the pride we have in our own holiness, or our lukewarm desire for penance.

My point is simply that in calling such things as this sins, we really make a mockery of what sin is.

People say the same thing about calling an embryo “life”, that it makes a mockery of the value of human life. But in fact it is just the small version of what even the hardest-hearted will admit.

Now will everyone who clicks the box without reading make a point to confess it in the confessional? … Soon, our priests will be begging for mercy.

You don’t have to confess venial sins, but deliberate venial sins should probably be confessed (though they don’t have to be in order to go to Communion).

Honestly, I consider scrupulosity to be not simple overzealousness, but a real spiritual danger.

Only a confessor can truly diagnose it. Scrupulosity is “an unfounded apprehension and consequently unwarranted fear that something is a sin which, as a matter of fact, is not.” It is not saying that something is too small to be a sin. Most people, at least from time to time, are tempted to think that their sins are very small, and in fact, might not be “sins” at all.

Now as to the original question, is it really a sin, I would recommend reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lying.

 

[JimG]

Now as to the original question, is it really a sin, I would recommend reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Lying.

I read the New Advent article. Obviously there have been, and are, various schools of thought on the subject, just as there have been other threads on CAF debating the subject of lying.

For me, there are several considerations with regard to the particular matter at hand:
Who is being lied to? Is there an intent to deceive? Any intent to defraud? Or just an intent to get on with business? Does the computer or the web-server know or care whether we read all the pages? Are there any human beings involved in the process except the clicker?

We seem to agree that the issue is not grave. I would say that the issue is not even sin. In seeing sin everywhere, one can be tempted to treat God as the divine bookkeeper, keeping marks of the smallest actions, and missing larger issues. To me, this was precisely where the Pharisees went wrong. Was it wrong for them to insist upon keeping the minutest article of the Law? Maybe not: Jesus did tell his followers to follow their instructions, even though he often ignored them. But they sure missed the big picture. And their strict observance did not seem to endear them to Christ.

And no one has yet responded as to whether signing a tax return with fully examining it is lying. Our signature certifies that we have examined it. My own view is that the certification is for the benefit of the IRS, not the taxpayer. Sure, they could charge an innocent spouse with perjury and fraud, yet there does remain an innocent spouse defense.

My dear wife used to respond to every “How are you?” inqury, with an enthusiastic “Fine!” no matter the circumstances or the state of her health or emotions. It was an attitude that made life go well. Even when she was in the hospital with a serious illness, the doc would visit each morning, asking “how are you today?” And the response would always be “just fine!” I once told her that since she was being charged about $20 per greeting, she might want to get her money’s worth by coming up with some complaints. But to no avail. A strict constructionist here might accuse her of habitual lying, but I know better.

 

[jmcrae]

My dear wife used to respond to every “How are you?” inqury, with an enthusiastic “Fine!” no matter the circumstances or the state of her health or emotions. It was an attitude that made life go well. Even when she was in the hospital with a serious illness, the doc would visit each morning, asking “how are you today?” And the response would always be “just fine!” I once told her that since she was being charged about $20 per greeting, she might want to get her money’s worth by coming up with some complaints. But to no avail. A strict constructionist here might accuse her of habitual lying, but I know better.

I have a friend with a degenerative muscular disease who takes the same attitude. She has recently become confined to a wheelchair (an eventuality that she had been dreading with many tears) and when I asked her, she said she was just fine, and chatted cheerfully about many things, without raising the issue about the wheelchair at all.

I don’t think she was “lying,” as such, either.

 

[jmj603]

I read the New Advent article. Obviously there have been, and are, various schools of thought on the subject

There are, and this surprised me, especially in light of the recent alleged “rehabilitation of Origen” by Pope Benedict XVI. I’m glad you actually read the article, and I’m glad I did too.

The part that causes me to think again is this:

The words, “I am not guilty”, derive the special meaning which they have in the mouth of a prisoner on his trial from the circumstances in which he is placed.

In seeing sin everywhere, one can be tempted to treat God as the divine bookkeeper, keeping marks of the smallest actions, and missing larger issues.

I think for a lot of people who don’t commit “big sins” there’s a tendency to see sin nowhere, and to miss one of the great motivating factors for doing penance and good works, namely the shortening of Purgatory. Even if one, helped by Christ and the indulgences of His Church, makes full satisfaction for one’s own sins (and this is not knowable), there are still the sins of others to atone for. St. Francis once asked St. Anthony to step on his neck to atone for a single uncharitable thought.

Jesus did tell his followers to follow their instructions, even though he often ignored them.

I don’t think he ignored them, I think he followed the higher law when there was a conflict.

But they sure missed the big picture. And their strict observance did not seem to endear them to Christ.

Their strict observance was not, in the end, strict observance.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Let’s hope you never have a relative bleed to death in the emergency room because you are busy reading all the fine print in the consent documents which you must sign before the doctor will operate. I can assure you, I’ve been in that position also, and even if I wanted to read them, my mind couldn’t have absorbed them. Later, looking back at them, words like “death” “coma” “epileptic fits” and “irreversible brain damage” leapt out at me. But I wasn’t going to sit and read everything through in an emergency. Like I had a choice! I signed the paper even though I hadn’t read it! I LIEDDDDDDDDD!

Why are you hanging around such horrible sinners such as us, except maybe to pound into our heads how much more righteous than us you are?

Does it feel good? Do you do this to all the people in real life? Of all the issues in the world for you to grab onto like a dog with a bone, you pick this? Well, guess what? 99.9 percent of us are less honest than you! How DO you live in the world knowing that? Wait. It probably makes you feel superior.

Good grief! I’m kind of done with this topic. We’re just feeding his ego.

 

[Syele]

Every hospital I ever saw will allow a relative who’s bleeding to death to start being treated while you take care of paperwork. no one is going to die if you read it first.

 

[didymus]

Would it be lying?

It would be stupid.
Yes, it’s a lot of gobbledygook, but it’s boilerplate & not hard to figure out. I just skim thru and make sure it’s the usual boilerplate w/no monkey wrenches thrown in.

Also, the TOS always has buried in in “I agree to the privacy policy” which can turn out to be a no-privacy policy – I’ve actually bailed out at this point several times.

I guess part of the reason I read (or at least skim) the TOS is to make sure there isn’t something slipped in like “I hereby sell my soul to Satan.”

 

[trentonzero]

It’s probably a lie, and therefore sinful (albeit a small one, so long as we really are accepting the contents of the Terms of Service).

What about “wide mental reservation”?

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

If I skim the TOS in about two seconds, and think that I agree to be bound by whatever is written on it, is that the legal form of mental reservation, and therefore not a lie?

 

[trentonzero]

Sorry, one more thought.

The sin of lying requires that we have an intent to decieve.

If we are clicking on a terms of service box because we have already seen these documents over and over again, and it IS our intent to be bound by those terms…then have we intended to decieve?

 

[Contrabass101]

Only a sin if you are a retailer who is bound by law to leave it on there for the customer, or if you made some kind of freaky “I promise not to rip tags off” kind of promise.

Which you technically might have, since you haven’t read everything you checked yes to…

No, I dont think it’s lying. Apply common sense! The words “I have read and agree…” is just as much legal mumbo-jumbo as the rest. It means that you are bound by what’s written in the TOS, and are suable.

I dont read it if it is from trusted companies, e.g. Microsoft, Java, Adobe… but if I downloaded something from spammers.ru, I might skim through their privacy policy

No, I may not technically read it, but I accept the legal consequences that reading it would have. Which is what I am *actually *asked for.

• CB

 

[didymus]

It’s probably a lie, and therefore sinful (albeit a small one, so long as we really are accepting the contents of the Terms of Service).

What about “wide mental reservation”?

newadvent.org/cathen/10195b.htm

If I skim the TOS in about two seconds, and think that I agree to be bound by whatever is written on it, is that the legal form of mental reservation, and therefore not a lie?

The TOS is a legal document, enforceable against you. It’s not a question of lie or mental reservation – if anything it’s about “meeting of the minds”.

Try it this way – your teenager is heading out with some friends and you tell him all the stuff you usually tell him, “Call when you get there, be back by curfew, &c, &c . . .” but at the end you tack on, “and make sure you fill up the gas on your way home!”

Naturally, he quit listening after Item #1 and responded “Yeah, yeah, yeah” to the whole list, which he’s heard a million times. So is he being disobedient when he returns home with an empty gas tank?

 

[Magicsilence]

When my scruples were really bad, NOT reading the TOS seemed like a mortal sin to me.

But, I have also studied Consumer Protection Law.

In the U.K, at least, a clause within a contract may not be held enforceable if:

something was contained within it that was not reasonable and that was also not highlighted clearly for the consumer to read.

However, if an unreasonable term is included and clearly highlighted, then it is more likely a judge will allow those who drew up the contract to enforce it in case of a breach of contract.

Therefore, a contract, whether electronic or not, is not designed to be read in detail. It is designed to legally stipulate the conditions upon which the agreement is made, and highlight those which are unreasonable or not ordinary.

Therefore, the TOS are there so that in the event of a breach, the company may use them to enforce their legal right.

Since most users do not intend to do anything illegal, clicking ‘yes I have read the TOS’ is no different to signing a contract without reading it in full. AND, no English judge would hold a man to a tiny clause hidden amongst 20 pages of size 1 font.

Hence, in clicking the ‘yes’ box, we are accepting any consequences that may follow, but also acting in the knowledge that most, if not all TOS are present for the protection of the business selling the product against illegal actions.

If you intend to comply with any sanction that would be enforced by an action of your own that is contravention of the TOS, what is the problem with clicking ‘yes’?

Still, I get a nagging feeling I am wrong

Peace and God Bless!

 

[JimG]

When my scruples were really bad, NOT reading the TOS seemed like a mortal sin to me.

Mortal Sin? That’s why these sorts of discussion are harmful to the scrupulous.

(a) mortal sin
(b) common sense

click one.

 

[Meggie]

Terms of Service are basically the way for the service provider to cover their butts. If I read every TOS for every site I used I’d of chucked my computer out of the window. I know what TOS is intended for, they are all basically the same. I won’t steal your ideas/ I will use this product or service how its intended/you have the right to end service at any time.

I doubt I’d even understand most TOS. I think that its like getting your bank statement, looking at your balances but not reading the back with 4.5 point font. You call the bank to make a transfer and they asked you if you have received and looked at your statement and you say yes. Technically you haven’t looked at even 1% of your bank statement.