I have to tell you, Teniba, I’m not a fan — but I’m also not surprised. Their new “regular person friendly” terms definitely leave a large amount of room for interpretation, which is the unfortunate case when it comes to removing legalese. As one commenter on the Dropbox blog post announcing the changes said, that particular problem could be resolved by simply changing a few words to remove the element of opinion from the TOS — from “whatever we feel is necessary” to whatever is necessary.”

The Amazon Cloud Storage TOS is very similar, but Dropbox is so entrenched along with so many services, that many people will probably opt to simply trust them or take the somewhat cynical attitude of “if you don’t want to compromise your privacy, then you shouldn’t use the web.” Unfortunately, even that attitude doesn’t cover things like use of ninttelectual property, which Dropbox is able to do without your consent, if they deem it necessary for their service — which could mean almost anything. Of course, they would have to prove that necessity in court should it come down to it, but that may also depend largely on the judge the case gets and whether they feel the contract that the user entered into was valid.

Hopefully some of the user backlash will inspire them to tweak the wording a bit so that it is much less ambiguous.