Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Denial of tenure case at Georgetown raises thorny issues .  LAC

NYT editorial quotes Dan Solove likening NSA snooping to Seurat art: one small dot seems trivial, but together a portrait emerges. Here. (LAC)

Warren Buffett never negotiates on price, always makes his highest offer first.  LAC

An elite decline? (kw)

Unanswered Questions (kw)

Most under-appreciated thing about Warren Buffett: he built Berkshire to last well beyond him.  (LAC, at BRK annual meeting via Motley Fool, here.)

University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • JDH on The Humble Justice Scalia

    • Ken Rhodes on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Ken Rhodes on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Neal Goldfarb on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Brett Bellmore on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Aaron Zelinsky on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Steph Tai on Grading Lessons from Cognitive Psychology

    • Charlie Naegle on Google Challenges Gag Orders Relating to Surveillance Programs, Citing First Amendment

    • Michael Dorff on Questioning Performance Pay

    • Sandra Sperino on Sole Motives and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Apple does its part to battle terrorism

posted by Nate Oman

Today in my contracts call we were looking at boilerplate and the problems of contracts of adhesion.  After class one of my students pointed out to me that buried in the fine print of its iTunes Store Terms and Conditions is a clause where Apple is doing its bit to foster non-proliferation.  Clause 34(g) declares in part

You may not use or otherwise export or re-export the Licensed Application except as authorized by United States law and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the Licensed Application was obtained. In particular, but without limitation, the Licensed Application may not be exported or re-exported (a) into any U.S. embargoed countries or (b) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department’s list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Department of Commerce Denied Person’s List or Entity List. By using the Licensed Application, you represent and warrant that you are not located in any such country or on any such list. You also agree that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.

Notice, as I read this clause not only are terrorists — or at least those on terrorist watch lists — prohibited from using iTunes to manufacture WMD, they are also prohibited from even downloading and using iTunes.  So all the Al-Qaeda operatives holed up in the Northwest Frontier Provinces of Pakistan, dodging drone attacks while listening to Britney Spears songs downloaded with iTunes  are in violation of the terms and conditions, even if they paid for the music!

That’ll show ‘em…

(Unless, of course, they can argue that the clause violates the reasonable expectations doctrine.  I mean, don’t we assume that when we download iTunes that we’ll be able to use it construct a nuclear missile?)


 February 9, 2010 at 6:59 pm   Posted in: Contract Law & Beyond, Weird   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (20)

  1. Bruce Boyden - February 9, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    Several years ago, the last time I looked at this issue, language like this was inserted because encryption software was on the Dept. of Commerce’s Export Control list. That itself was an evolution from the time, 12 years ago or so, when encryption was treated as a munition and regulated by the State Department.

  2. Nate Oman - February 9, 2010 at 10:25 pm

    Bruce: Interesting. Do you know if the ability of language like this to shield companies has ever been tested? If I understand you correctly the idea is to protect Apple from liability for exporting encryption technology. On the other hand, if I put the technology out there on the web for anyone to download, it seems a bit much to claim after the fact that I didn’t provide access to undesirable parties because of a clause in the boilerplate of the terms of service.

  3. Tony - February 9, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Public opinion and sentiments will always change as time goes on. Technology is no different in US’s export control. There was a time where stuff like this was legal: http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/04/dont-copy-a-website-especially-if-it-belongs-to-a-law-firm/

  4. Civ. Pro. King - February 10, 2010 at 7:42 am

    These clauses are relatively old, but recently they might have been revised by many companies to reflect new social phenomena and change in State Dept./Treas. regs.

  5. James Grimmelmann - February 10, 2010 at 12:09 pm

    The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security regulates the export of cryptography. There were a series of First Amendment challenges to the regulations (Berstein v. U.S. and Junger v. Daley) in the 1990s, the result of which is that the government backed off the regulations such that posting material on the web isn’t considered an illegal export. The BIS page is here.

  6. Bruce Boyden - February 10, 2010 at 12:42 pm

    Nate, to my knowledge the provisions have never been tested. My vague recollection is that the export controls on encryption evolved to the point where any encryption in a mass consumer product received informal approval, without need for prior review from BXA. (I haven’t looked at this since at least 2005.) But I believe there were requirements that any strong encryption product subject to the export controls nevertheless contain some sort of contractual restriction barring re-export to certain countries (state sponsors of terrorism). So I believe the contract provisions were either required or at least were intended to serve the licensing process, not form some sort of basis for exclusion from liability.

    A couple of things: I’ve never seen one of those clauses saying specifically you couldn’t use the product to build weapons. The concern was always that terrorists would use encryption to hide their plans. So maybe something else is at work here. Also, the encryption controls are (or were) administered by the Bureau of Export Administration in the Dept. of Commerce. But I’m seeing references to the Dept. of Treasury above. Perhaps there are money-laundering regulations that apply here too, although I’m not sure how Itunes would fall within those schemes, which I thought only applied to financial institutions.

  7. wemaflo.net » Apple fights terrorism – Die iTunes „Terms And Conditions“ - February 10, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    [...] @annnalist, Schneier on Security, Concurring Opinons, iTunes Store Kommentare (0) Trackbacks (0) Einen Kommentar schreiben [...]

  8. M - February 10, 2010 at 4:03 pm

    Might be a preemptive defense to not violating 18 USC 2339.

  9. Los terroristas tienen prohibido usar iTunes - February 10, 2010 at 11:44 pm

    [...] Los terroristas tienen prohibido usar iTunes http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/02/apple-does-its-p…  por klam hace 2 segundos [...]

  10. Security by hypocrisy - CNIS mag - February 12, 2010 at 2:36 am

    [...] entretenue et continue de figurer en première place des traditions Etats-Uniennes. Ainsi, remarque Concurring Opinions, cette clause de contrat que comporte la EULA d’iTune, et qui interdit aux terroristes localisés [...]

  11. Evan Carroll - February 12, 2010 at 8:51 am

    If this is it, Apple has a far superior way to tackle this problem when compared to sourceforge.com: block huge swaths of land, like Iran and Syria. I’ll take an a disclaimer no one reads over the type of nuisance sourceforge is creating any day.

  12. Apple hace sus deberes en contra del terrorismo | ALT1040 - February 12, 2010 at 5:30 pm

    [...] un poco de humor involuntario para terminar la semana. En Concurring Opinions destacan un párrafo muy interesante del contrato de Términos y Condiciones de [...]

  13. Apple hace sus deberes en contra del terrorismo | WebRumbera Noticias - February 12, 2010 at 8:21 pm

    [...] un poco de humor involuntario para terminar la semana. En Concurring Opinions destacan un párrafo muy interesante del contrato de Términos y Condiciones de iTunes: [...]

  14. Apple hace sus deberes en contra del terrorismo | La guarida del friki - February 12, 2010 at 11:46 pm

    [...] un poco de humor involuntario para terminar la semana. En Concurring Opinions destacan un párrafo muy interesante del contrato de Términos y Condiciones de [...]

  15. Apple hace sus deberes en contra del terrorismo | NEU! - February 12, 2010 at 11:59 pm

    [...] un poco de humor involuntario para terminar la semana. En Concurring Opinions destacan un párrafo muy interesante del contrato de Términos y Condiciones de [...]

  16. Bernd Felsche - February 13, 2010 at 8:30 pm

    It’s all so obvious now!

    Anybody without an iPod must be a terrorist! :-)

  17. Greg - February 15, 2010 at 1:47 pm

    Maddox pointed this out years ago

  18. Greg - February 15, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    Maddox pointed this out years ago.

    http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=macs_cant

  19. OPP – 2/16 (Abbey Road, Sasquatch, more) : EAR FARM :: music information helps grow ears - February 16, 2010 at 8:48 am

    [...] does its part to battle [...]

  20. Zach - October 24, 2010 at 6:34 pm

    I think that it is great that there is language that supports the fight against terrorism. No US company should support or allow terrorists to use their products for any reason.

    Kirkland Wa Homes For Sale

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Kelli A. Alces
Andrew Blair-Stanek
Ryan Calo
Katie Eyer
Stephen Galoob
Woodrow Hartzog
Claire Hill
William McGeveran
David L. Schwartz
Babak Siavoshy
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Jay Kesten
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Meredith Render
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Aaron Saiger
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Just Books
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
Privacy and Security Training
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
TeachPrivacy Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress