Would a user expose themselves to legal jeopardy if they were paid to write a question or an answer for someone else? Background After reading through several policies for Stack Exchange, I could not find anything that explicitly forbids or bans a user from writing a question or answer on behalf of someone else in exchange for money. That is, I could not find anything that states someone who is paid to log in as another user and write a specific answer, or question for them. However, given that I have seen policies against Real World Training in websites such as Runescape and World of Warcraft, I was curious if something similar existed for Stack Exchange and its sister sites. Question Would payment in exchange for writing another user's question or answer potentially violate the legal policies of a Stack Exchange?
This would not be "legal jeopardy" per-se, really the only remedy that Stack Exchange would have in a case like this would be to ban both accounts. It would be different if you caused SE some kind of monetary/reputation damages to the site itself. From SE's Acceptable Use Policy: Identity Theft and Privacy. Users that misleadingly appropriate the identity of another person are not permitted. It seems your described scheme would violate that term. But this isn't a legal problem, just an operational one. You aren't violating any law (unless there are local laws against this) by paying somebody to "be you" on SE. The most that this would earn you and your cohort would be a ban and probably removal of the contributions.
Yes Businesses (and consumers) can choose who to do business with and what information they ask for and disclose and when they do that. If you’re uncomfortable with how they do business, don’t deal with them. If they don’t like how you do business, they are free not to deal with you. This is called discrimination. However, it is not unlawful because only discrimination against a person due to membership of a protected classes is unlawful. This person “won’t answer my questions” is not discrimination based on a protected class (unless they are a monk who has taken a vow of silence).
OK, so you understand that clickwraps do create enforceable contracts. the person "agreeing" to the dialog can arbitrarily manipulate the contents of the agreement terms So what? I can do a similar thing with a pen and paper agreement. You send me an agreement, I tell you I accept but secretly I have changed it. Well, guess what, when this ends up in court the judge won't care if I wiped my ass with it - I communicated my acceptance of your terms; therefore that is what I accepted. Under the hood, Google can show what the HTML was that their server sent to you and the http response that you sent back. They said "Do you accept?" you sent back "yes", deal done. What you did with the html in your computer does not matter one iota; just like what you did with pen and ink terms would.
if these questions and answers are found to be legally binding ... They aren’t. Therefore the premise of your question is flawed. It’s like asking “If my dog was a cat ...”. Well, since your dog isn’t a cat we don’t need to hear the rest of the question.
This is similar to giving a hammer and needing to state to one is not responsible if the taker uses it to hit their head with. I believe this is the wrong analogy to use here. It would be more like giving somebody a hammer and saying you are not responsible if the head flies off and injures you. There is a concept in &quot;things&quot; you obtain called &quot;fitness for purpose&quot;, so if you download open-source software like a registry cleaner, and it deletes your entire registry, the &quot;WTFPL&quot; doesn't absolve the authors of liability. Explicitly denying any kind of &quot;fitness for purpose&quot; or warranty helps shield the author from legal claims (even if they are meritless) because it kills it out of the gate. It's possible that the WTFPL license granter/author could still be sued and have to defend themselves in court because it isn't explicitly stated that there is no warranty or fitness for purpose. Open source does not mean that it's &quot;use at your own risk&quot;, which is why there are so many types of licenses and disclaimers. From comments: Thank you for this very clear answer. Does the fact that someone willingly retrieves free code with no control of the provider changes anything? (vs a software vendor which provides code suitable for A and B, in exchange for money) I think closer to your hammer analogy where I would sue the producer of hammer XXX, a hammer I found on the street or which was given to me without involvement of vendor XXX. No, this doesn't change anything. The software vendor here is the person who writes the code, even if they don't charge for it. They are the ones who license the software and they are the ones who take some level of responsibility for it. In this case, the software author is the &quot;hammer producer&quot; that you would sue... If you buy &quot;Registry Cleaner XL&quot; from Best Buy and it bricks your computer, you don't sue Best Buy, you sue the person who authored the software. In pretty much every case, the author is the responsible party, not the vendor, and it is the author who licenses it, not the vendor (the vendor just acts as an intermediary).
In the United States at least, the answer is clearly "Yes". Absent some restrictive agreement to which the would-be blogger is explicitly a party, a person has a protected right to comment or report on events and publish opinions of them. The question does not mention a location or jurisdiction, and I am not suren what the law on this point might be in non-US jurisdictions.
I know that I have to provide detailed information which data I save and how I use it. Yes, you should, if you are getting access to users' Dropbox accounts, which will contain all sorts of private data, copyrighted (and illegally copied copyrighted files), etc. You provide the detailed information to your users through a click-through Privacy Policy - TOS (Terms of Service) in your App, like any other App out there. Click wrap (Wikipedia) user agreements are legally binding in many jurisdictions. Even if you don't access files and information - such as personal information or files - you still need a clear TOS for your App, for both your users' and your own legal protection. But I am a poor student who don't want invest money into a lawyer to write me a privacy policy ... I do not plan to get paid for (this app)... Being a free or paid App doesn't make a difference when it comes to the TOS, if you need one, and if you need to pay for one to be drafted. But not investing money in a lawyer can be a critical mistake if your App will be distributed on the popular App directories like Google Play and iTunes and your TOS does not clearly and legally outline all possible usage and data polices. Lawyers have experience in covering all the bases. Is there any way I can do this privacy policy on my own? Sure, you can: https://www.google.com/search?q=privacy+policy+generator But you run considerable legal liability not having a TOS that correctly and legally addresses all users' privacy concerns and clearly outlines what you do to insure security. That's what lawyers are for. Is it possible to just create some “I save all your data“ policy which would of course be to much but it would include all data I save and so I would not miss anything in my policy? Sure, you can simply say I save all your data. But how can you be sure that you've haven't missed important policy details and scenarios that could result in legal action against you? Like how long do you save data? When will you delete it? How secure is it? Can the user ask for deletion? What happens if you get hacked? What about users in countries other than the US? Users under 18 years old? You must use arbitration for any disputes? And on and on. The considerable legal liability of using a non-professionally drafted TOS means you run the risk of getting sued. You have to decide if it is worth the risk.
The section you quote as clearly saying a thing is not clearly saying the thing. However: you cannot pass on or resell any license keys seems to say a thing clearly. However, one could argue that it's the sharer of the account who is in the wrong, and not the person receiving and passing on the account. I'd say that that piece of the agreement, combined with this: must not... let other people get access to anything we've made in a way that is unfair or unreasonable says that, yes, they are out of bounds.