The Digital Error ("Era")

Click wrap and browse-wrap and statements such as “continue to accept” don’t take into consideration minors and the disabled and the laws set forth to protect their rights.  This also applies to those incapable of making decisions legally also known as “The Capacity to Contract”.   Those who fall under this by U.S. law are:

-the mentally disabled as defined by the DSM-5

-children under the age of 18

-This in relation to COPPA?

-those intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol

The capacity to contract and digital contracts

That being said children under the age of 18, the mentally disabled, and those intoxicated by drugs or alcohol are not legally able to enter into any “contractual agreement” therefore nullifying contractual agreements such as click wrap and browse-wrap (the privacy statements and terms and conditions on ALL websites, applications, softwares, devices etc).  

That being said, those entities which utilize such tactics are not only exploiting adults who overlook the terms and conditions but children who do not understand the implications of the verbiage “continue browsing to accept”.  This is unlaw and exploitative and should be punished with severity.  In order to maintain basic human rights, reform is necessary globally due to the ability of applications and their developers to circumvent national jurisdiction.

This also brings into question ethical research procedures in the surveillance economy error (“era”).  Research is defined as the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions, all data surreptitiously collected and disseminated under the guise of market research is illegal research.  "The Belmont Report", our standard for ethical research, sets forth guidelines establishing that in order to do any type of research “informed consent” is necessary otherwise it is unethical<=illegal>?unethical==illegal>?unethical>=illegal>?. What's the bigger question? Understanding this very specific set of information, browse-wrap and click-wrap from my purview are nowhere close to “informed consent”.  

Understanding the general lack of morals in business and other arenas where money and power (information is power in a surveillance economy especially when it comes to the behavioral data of a populous) are involved you would say unethical does not mean illegal; but, from Law of land springs Law of book. These in reference to "Terms and Conditions" and "Privacy Statements" are forms of online contracts which means they fall under the same standards of contractual agreements (true or true false?); therefore, these types of digital contracts would be nullified if the individual falls into one of these categories:

-The mentally disabled.

-Children under the age of 18.

-Those intoxicated by drugs or alcohol.

TLDR: The nullification of digital contracts due to “Capacity to Contract” Laws makes it illegal to collect or utilize data of those who by Law do not have the capacity to contract.

These ethical and legal guidelines are violated with every piece of data collected exploitatively, illegally, and unethically, every piece of data utilized in "research" exploitatively, illegally, and unethically, and every piece of data disseminated and sold exploitatively, illegally, and unethically be it collected by device, application, or otherwise. The surveillance economy on which they placed this republic is corrupt to the core and the people on which it stands should have purchase within it.

OPT-OUT BY DEFAULT INSTEAD OF OPT-IN

-Supreme Court stance on digital contracts

-Mind my jurisprudence but the security of American's data in the digital age should be at the forefront of legislation if protection of the people is truly their design.

-Our leading bodies in the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive branches failed to institute, update, or enforce Laws which protect the American citizens in the digital error (“era”) and punished those who sought to protect the very documents, Laws, and institutions which once made America great.

-The American Psychological Association even violates the standards which they are purported to uphold. Apa.org website privacy statement would not be considered informed consent when stating its use of data in research.

-Third-party's application analytics and behavioral metrics based on peoples browsing habits: where they look, where they click, and for how long (web analytics heat maps for example) as well as any biometric data collection.  What percentage of people, broken down by age and other demographics, read the entirety of terms and conditions, privacy statements, and other digital contracts.  Innocuous possibly but if knowing that a very low percentage, say under 5% of the user-base, why would they still hold people to contractual obligations exploitatively and if violation is found would cumulative liability clauses be circumvented to provide the people compensation due to monetary loss?

-"Phones", "Phone Systems", "Cellular Devices", "Voice over Internet Protocol", "Cloud Phone Systems" in direct definition as compared to "Computers" within the "Prosecuting Computer Crimes Manual" (2010 publication hmm... it's 2024 Unacceptable).

With only the future in mind,

~Aaron X.