I just went to download a song from iTunes, to find yet another "the terms have changed" notice, as seems to happen every few months. You can't proceed without checking a little box that says, "I have read and agree to the iTunes Terms and Conditions." Except that the terms are just obscenely long, and of course they don't give you a diff, tell you what's changed; they know, as everyone knows, that nobody actually reads these. How could you? Can they possibly be enforceable under those conditions?
And they're not even trying. I tried to select the text so I could get a word count on it, and it wasn't selectable. So I clicked the "printable version" link, which opens up the page http://www.apple.com/legal/itunes/us/terms.html#SERVICE in a browser window. The "#SERVICE" part of that means it skips the top of the page (which is part of the text I'm supposed to have read). On the linked page, the top section is dated "Last updated: January 27, 2009", while in the corresponding section of the iTunes terms, it is "Last updated: February 23, 2009". So apparently, the two versions have been out of sync for about three weeks now, and nobody noticed. Unsurprising, and yet absurd.
Still, having grabbed the printable version (however out of date), I can get some stats on it. It is 23 pages in length, with the text alone clocking in at a whopping 110 kilobytes. And what are the contents of this dissertation I'm supposed to claim that I read in sufficient detail to agree to it? Well, it's divided into five main blocks that each have a somewhat different organisation but which collectively are parent to some 112 sections—and some of those are further subdivided, as follows:
So let's play ball for a moment and suppose that I actually read this. You know what happens if you spend more than a couple minutes at this sisyphean task before clicking the checkbox and then clicking Continue? Yup, that's right.
What makes this truly exquisite is that the left-pointing triangle in the upper-left there is greyed out. That means you can't even back up to the thing you were trying to download; you have to re-search for it from scratch. Nevermind the fact that my Apple ID still is visible in the upper right of the iTunes window, and when I do go back to the main iTMS home screen, the "Just For You" is in fact just for me; despite knowing precisely who I am and that I'm still the same person as before, they throw out my entire session for the grave crime of actually trying to spend some time reading the splatter of legalism that they vomit at my screen at fairly regular intervals.
I really need to find a different source for my online music. And my music players. And my computers. Apple has really been working very hard to turn away someone who's been a Mac fan for nearly two decades and an Apple user almost since birth. Smooth move, Apple.
"For more than 100 years this country has gradually extended rights, privileges and respect to more and more groups. To block a further extension you have to do better than cite tradition and the wounded feelings of those who already enjoy such status." --Eric Zorn
It's stories like this that (legitimately) get the Roman Catholic Church and anti-choice activists accused of misogyny:
A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins. It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather....
The anti-choice crowd tends to claim that they are not anti-women but rather pro-child; situations like this kind of give away the game, though.
I can certainly get behind campaigns to convince people to be more open to accepting unexpected children into their life, and even to persuade people of a particular moral status for abortion (e.g. that it is wrong or wrong in certain circumstances)—both can be conducted on a social level and without judging or prejudging individual situations, and without veering off into dismissing or ignoring women.
The reason this particular case is making the international news is because of the clarity of the example: this isn't even just your typical mother's-life-in-danger example, because we also have rape, incest, and abuse thrown into the mix, not to mention the extreme youth of the child involved. And yet, the archbishop claims that it is gravely wrong to save this girl's life.
Lee points out an additional irony: "I notice the stepfather apparently can still take communion." Apparently the fate of public excommunication is too harsh for rapists, child abusers, et al, rather to be reserved for truly evil people, like the scared mother of a scared 9-year-old girl, and the doctors who save the girl's life. Good job, Catholic Church!
"Ranting at others because they are 'killing babies' may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't change people's minds." --Fr. Andrew Greeley