Printable Consent Form: Fill & Download for Free

By now, at least in the US, most courts have held "browse-wrap" agreements to be enforceable. That said, the answer you'll get from most lawyers is that things vary by jurisdiction, and there are no guarantees, but the greatest likelihood of the terms being upheld in court, in descending order, is as follows:Electronic signature (meaning user must type his or her name or initials into a signature box)"Click-wrap" with a scroll box showing the entire language of the TOU (bonus points for making the user scroll all the way to the bottom before enabling the "I Agree" button, or for including a printable version)"Click-wrap" with a box that must be checked by the user, above the Submit button, stating "I have read and agree to the Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy" (links)No box to check, just language stating that "By using the site, you agree to the Terms of Use Agreement and Privacy Policy" (links), preferably appearing above the "Continue" or "Submit" buttonNone of the above, only links at the bottom of the page to the TOU and Privacy Policy.Of course it should be immediately apparent that in terms of user experience and conversion rate, the order of these is inverted. The more barriers you put in front of new users, the lower your V-to-R (visitor to registration) percentage is likely to be. So it's a classic example of lawyers vs. marketers, and you can guess which is more important to most sites. In practice, they usually settle on #3 or #4 as a good-enough compromise. Here's an example of #4 from Match.com:The approach really should be tailored to the nature of the site. For consumer-facing sites with a lot of legal exposure or in heavily regulated industries (PayPal (product), online banking and brokerage sites, SharesPost, etc.), they often have no choice but to go with #1 or #2. At the other extreme, news and information sites that don't even require registration, are free, mostly unregulated, etc., are likely to gravitate to #5. The more onerous and one-sided the terms are, the more likely a judge is to declare them unenforceable, but you stand a better chance by requiring a higher level of disclosure and consent.

Simple: forget about passwords, and use passphrases instead.Imagine that you used the phrase 'No one shall open the key without my consent' to protect your private ssh key. Let's say that there are 2k common englihsh words in an attacker's dictionary (there are probably many more). Assuming the attacker knows that the passphrase has exactly 9 words, brute-forcing it requires 2000^9 checks (this is approximately a 5 followed by 29 zerores!).If you used passwords containing all the ascii printable characters (136 in total), you would require a 14-characters randomly generated password to achieve the same level of security.I can easily choose between both approaches, and you? ;)

I want to be very clear, I love Glass and all the positive prospects this technology will bring about and am actively a part of this revolution.Glass is not currently designed for continuous video recording as battery life and memory storage are issues. However this will certainly not be the case at some point in the near term.However on many levels Glass will impact all aspects of privacy.There Are Two Sides To All RevolutionsWith all new manifestations of all the advancements in technology, it brings an equal number of issues that could be deemed as positive and negative. At the very least new standards and expectations will need to be presented in just about all human interactions using these type of devices. This will form the foundation of new societal norms.I will address the psychological issues this technology presents and not the legal issues. The legal issues are far more complex and will likely be decided in tests of case law (consent laws for taping of conversations may form a basis here).The Research: Human Territories And Personal DistanceProxemics: The interrelated observations and theories of man's use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture.In the early 1960s Edward T. Hall, Professor of Anthropology, Northwestern University [1] developed the term and studied the impact of the space around humans called Promxemics [2]. Professor Hall described circular regions or spheres that surround all of us and the expectations we place within these perceived regions. Proxemics also describes the cultural expectations and the variation of expectations based on the gender and age of the individual.Example Of Professor Hall's Proxemic Distances.Proxemics Distances:Intimate distance for embracing, touching or whispering- Close phase – less than 6 inches (15 cm)- Far phase – 6 to 18 inches (15 to 46 cm)Personal distance for interactions among good friends or family members- Close phase – 1.5 to 2.5 feet (46 to 76 cm)- Far phase – 2.5 to 4 feet (76 to 120 cm)Social distance for interactions among acquaintances- Close phase – 4 to 7 feet (1.2 to 2.1 m)- Far phase – 7 to 12 feet (2.1 to 3.7 m)Public distance used for public speaking- Close phase – 12 to 25 feet (3.7 to 7.6 m)- Far phase – 25 feet (7.6 m) or more.Professor Hall also defined territories and the expectations one would assume to have within these territories.Proxemics General Territories:Public territory- a place where one may freely enterInteractional territory- a place where people congregate informallyHome territory- a place where people claim their individual territoryBody territory- the space immediately surrounding usFight, Flight Or HideProxemic research confirms that the Fight, Flight or Hide defense is activated when an unwelcome entry is made into the Personal distance spheres and/or Home/Body territories. It also shows that even if one perceives that there is an unwelcome encroachment into the Personal distance and our core Interactional, Home and body territories, we will react in almost the same manner as if an actual encroachment had been made. The end effect to most people is destabilizing to at minimum.Although in the 1960s when Professor Hall performed most of his defining research he did not address how, known or unknown, video recording would impact the human Proxemics, his work certainly shines a light in the direction of how these devices would impact the psychology of the people around the user.Proxemics research shows us that humans have expectations about how the spheres of space around us is perceived. With new technology the entire range of territories and distances in these territories are impacted.Perception And Human EmotionsTen years ago if someone in our Home or Body territories began to video tape our private interactions without clearly denoting that this is taking place, most of us would react in a very negative manner. We would have an expectation that this would be and encroachment or outright violation of these territories. Thus the same holds true today. Humans are the same, the technology has changed.Perception more than reality control human emotions. The potential of "always on" video recording is an emotional issue first and foremost. All of us will deal with the emotional impact of being recorded by potentially everyone and anyone in public and private settings. Unlike public security cameras the human mounted, potentially "always on" video recording systems, enter into our core Home and body territory. The short term and long term impact may have some unintended circumstances and repercussions on relationships.PrivacyThere is a basic need built into all of us to feel a layer of perceived emotional protection within our private or semi-private territories and Intimate and Personal distances. These areas form a layer of emotional protection from the perceived dangers of the outside world. We are not just speaking of sexual intimacy or bathroom habits. We are speaking of the impact of knowing that there may be a permanence to all you say and do with people using these devices particularly in the Home and Body territory. The device user may have accepted this impact, however the people around the device user may not accept this at equal level.Reactionary ResponsesFew of us are ready for the huge emotional impact of the potential of significant others, family and friends to record, publish or innocently leak personal and private moments in to the public space. However there has been a reactionary response to the rise of Glass type technologies.One such reactionary response is Stop The Cyborgs [3]:"Stop The Cyborgs’ was founded in response to Baidu eye, Google Glass, Life Logging and other technology trends including combination of the internet of things with big data. The aim of the movement is to stop a future in which privacy is impossible and where the iron cage of surveillance, calculation and control pervades every aspect of life.The issue as we have pointed out elsewhere is not the device itself but rather ownership and control over the data, and power relations and social norms around surveillance and control.Is it acceptable for a company to have access to what people with hearing aids or vision aids are seeing and hearing?If the users do not have complete control over their devices then potentially your leg might stop working because of a payment dispute with your vendor or your vision might stops working during an anti Government demonstration.We therefore urge the designers of devices to ensure that the needs of all people are taken into account and that the device itself and all data gathered by these devices are within the control of the individual. We would also press for a legal right to control your extended body including rights over all and any data gathered."Clearly this site is making the point that there must be a public dialog about how these devices will be used in the future. It is debatable if the bias this site shows towards these devices will allow wide acceptance of the views they hold. Stop The Cyborgs even created a sign that business and perhaps individuals can erect to put on notice a user of a Glass type of device.Example of a printable sign created by Stop The CyborgsMoore's Law Is Faster Than Human EvolutionThe rapid advancement of technology will always have an impact on the human emotions. We simply are not able to adapt as rapidly as Moore's Law. The rise of Social Networks has blurred the lines of what most of society viewed as public and private. As Glass and Glass-like devices become commonplace, and I believe they will, relationships of all types would need to adjust to this new technology.The relationships of the users of Glass-like devices will be impacted in a meaningful way if there is a perception that interactions that were once between two people could at some point become a public record.It is very clear that if the psychological aspects are not addressed in the early phases of the introduction of these new devices, it will wind up being done in a very reactionary way. This will serve no one in the end.Google Setting Societal Standards For GlassI think it is of utmost importance for Google to take a leadership role in defining a public dialog about how these types of devices should be expected to be used and perhaps create standards of use and notifications to those being recorded. Anything less will foster much more of a reactionary response.Mixed FeelingsUsing these devices for a short period of time, I personally have very mixed feelings on how these type of devices will impact all of us. My inner technologist in me is currently at war with my inner anthropologist and I feel that none of this is going to be settled anytime soon.For the sake of the sanctity of our personal and private lives, we should start taking steps to draw our own personal lines on when these devices are appropriate. I suggest that this should be done sooner rather then later.___1) Edward T. Hall2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxemics3) Stop The Cyborgs