Slashdot Mirror
UK Wifi Provider Tricks Customers Into Agreeing To Clean Sewers (upi.com)
An anonymous reader quotes UPI:
Unwitting customers in the United Kingdom who didn't read the terms and conditions for use of a public WiFi hotspot agreed to perform 1,000 hours of community service, including unclogging sewers and scraping gum off the street. The gag was conceived by WiFi provider Purple. The company inserted the clause into its terms and conditions -- the technically legally binding agreement consumers approve in exchange for use of free Internet, though virtually few actually read the terms. The company said it did so to call attention to the fact consumers are regularly agreeing to terms that they may not actually like, including granting access to private information and data about their web browsing habits.
Other community service tasks agreed to by users included "providing hugs to stray cats and dogs" and "painting snail shells to brighten up their existence." The agreement also promised a prize to anyone who actually became aware of the prize's existences after reading the terms and conditions -- yet after two weeks only one person came forward to claim the prize.
Other community service tasks agreed to by users included "providing hugs to stray cats and dogs" and "painting snail shells to brighten up their existence." The agreement also promised a prize to anyone who actually became aware of the prize's existences after reading the terms and conditions -- yet after two weeks only one person came forward to claim the prize.
and conditions....there's the "null"
Any truly competent lawyer should be able to demonstrate that they are badly designed from a human factors and effective communication perspective, as evidenced by the fact that they are almost always unread yet clicked on by almost everybody. It's not an effective contract, since there was no effective communication about it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
What?
*Nobody* EVER reads those fucking oceans of gibberish, and it's retarded beyond words to expect anyone at all to ever do it. It's insulting. They need to be a few extremely clear-worded bullet points and nothing more. At most a few sentences. ONLY then is it OK to "force" the user to read and agree to it.
...meaning virtually sitting on arse, using your virtually free Wifi.
I donate any prizes I win to widows and orphans.
The Fine Print Society
http://privatopia.blogspot.com/2011/12/fine-print-society.html
by Evan McKenzie
Thursday, December 22, 2011
As I go over all the bills and statements and announcements and changes to this or that plan or arrangement or contract that have flooded into my mailbox recently, it occurs to me that this is a form of concerted action. Corporate managers have collectively determined to overwhelm us with fine print. We can't possibly read all this crap, much less meditate like some 18th century aristocrat on the implications of the content. Yet we can't do so much as download an update to Adobe Acrobat without "signing" a contract. We are conclusively presumed to have read, understood, and agreed to every lawyer-drafted word, and yet everybody knows that none of us reads this. Not even Ron Paul -- so don't start with me. And the more of these contracts we get, the less likely it is that we will read any of them. So corporations have an incentive to send more of them and make them longer and more verbose. This is a collective decision on their part, and it is working, and they know it.
Nearly all of this stuff is enforceable, as many an HOA or condo unit owner has discovered, and it makes citizens relatively powerless. The private logic of contract law structures the relationship as individual consumer vs. big corporation with government as the enforcer of the contract, instead of citizens vs. powerful private organizations, with government as policy maker holding jurisdiction over the relationship.
The law calls these boilerplate documents "contracts of adhesion," but the days are long past when judges were willing to throw them out because they were drafted by one party and imposed on the other, there was gross inequality of bargaining power, and there was no real assent to the terms. Now they are deemed essential to the free flow of modern commerce.
My view has always been that policy makers should be willing to step in and reform these relationships if they become predatory or destructive. But there is little stomach for that presently.
7 comments:
which specifies Right Whale A-221 as the arbitrator....because, of course, the rulings are always right....
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So, shouldn't they be calling attention to the ridiculous EULA ecosystem that companies have managed to create, where the agreements are so long and full of legal jargon that the average person can't possibly be expected to fully understand them? Shouldn't they be doing that instead of mocking those same people who either didn't read or didn't understand what they were agreeing to?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
If there is any city in the world that best understands clean sewers it would be London.
UK wifi provider: LOL! jokes all around! we didnt really want you to paint snail shells!
US wifi provider: You will paint shells until your fucking hands drop off, and if so much as one of them chips, we will grind everyone you love into paint for the next batch.
Adjit Pai: sounds like fun! pick any of your favourite colours youre told to pick!
Good people go to bed earlier.
Can anyone cite an example of a "click-through" contract being enforced in a court of law?
They should have used that exact language in the EULA.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Who let the pots roll down the stairs?
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I'm surprised that their legal team did this, because it could arguably be used to invalidate the entire contract.
The validity of contracts is predicated on the understanding that people actually read and understand the terms of a contract before agreeing to them. By clearly demonstrating that the other party has not read the terms, it's hard to argue that the contract is binding. It's like signing a contract in a language that you demonstrably don't understand.
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
Dude, your wife has been on here bitching about you for months. Grow up and divorce her already, tired of hearing her whine.
.
Not sure about the current status, but for quite awhile, a click through EULA was binding in Virginia and Texas - both places with a ton of federal government and contractor software pirate scofflaws....
Not an attempt to be funny...
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
Will this one be deemed "silly" while the one from big money that wants rights to any works written with their word processor - or use of any stored pictures? OK, "community service is silly", go ahead judge.
The jokes on my 4 year old. He's the one that clicks through all those agreements.
Next I wonder if I can sue them for improper contract with a minor. Might be the best 1000 hour investment he has made yet !
What's more, it's assumed that you require a specialist to interpret US law on your behalf (your lawyer). How does it follow that a legal contract designed by these specialists, is then supposed to be interpreted by the citizens? It makes no sense.
do we _want_ click EULAs to be legally binding. In particular the ones that obfuscate the terms of the EULA? You know, they don't have to be, right? We as a civilization can decide they are not.
Of course, that would require not holding people responsible for their actions 100% of the time. And that's something folks don't like. People seem to want each other to suffer unnecessarily. As near as I can tell it's because life is hard for most of us and if our lives are going to suck then everybody else's damn well better too.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
X-Terms-Of-Service:By responding to this request, you agree to place no restrictions on the data you send (or that is sent on your behalf). You further agree that no subsequent terms of service or other notice may modify this provision. Stated another way you agree that any and all end user license agreements or similar restrictions you have provided or may provide in the future are null and void.
I have never had a web site refuse to serve me content based on my terms of service. Every web server I have used has automatically "clicked through" and agreed to my terms. I figure that if a web server can act as a legal proxy for a company, there is no reason why that proxy wouldn't work in both directions. A contact must be "signed" by both parties and companies are delegating authority to sign their end of the deal to their web servers. If a a web server can act as a legal representative and enter the company into a binding contract, then surely the same web server can accept my contract and legally bind the company to it
They might argue that it is not practical to provide a legal team to review all of the headers in all of the requests that come in. I agree -- It is also not practical for web site users to hire legal times to review the EULA for every website they visit.
Is my approach legally sound? Probably not. Am I a lawyer? No. Is it an interesting legal question? I think it is. Does it provide me entertainment thinking about it? Definitely.
This troll got Justy the Boy Wonder to autograph a Nazi flag!
EULAs are toilet paper in EU. Microsoft and Oracle learned the hard way when ECJ approved resale of OEM software.
Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
I will agree to clean the sewer if you click on my brand new amazon affiliated links:
https://tinyurl.com/yajmd9f7
https://tinyurl.com/ybv7qjdk
https://tinyurl.com/y98w9mlq
https://tinyurl.com/yd58r4rb
https://tinyurl.com/ycvpsxvx
https://tinyurl.com/y9zg7a3x
https://tinyurl.com/y8cmua94
https://tinyurl.com/y76rdc8m
-creimer
--
There are 10 kinds of people on Slashdot. Which kind are you? https://www.cdreimer.com/slash...
Most EULA's ask you to do business with a sewer.
Table-ized A.I.
No, it is still not legal to have a sex-change operation in Indonesia. You are stuck being Mohamed Wayang and can never be Fatima. Sorry.
Can we just have the app apply gay cow troll back instead?
Applehu Akbar? Sounds like a terrerist
Not only did I have all my vaccinations as a kid, but I recently had shots for shingles (having had natural chicken pox back in the nineteen hundreds, when children still had to go through that) and pneumonia. No matter how much GMO-free tofu you may have gorged on, just my getting close to you would probably give you autism.
You cannot be held to terms that fall short of the reasonable person test. It's actually in your favour to not read most contracts as there is much precedent that will protect you.
This probably doesn't apply in the USA, you'll get 20 years in a private prison if you don't adhere to whatever you sign.
So this seems rather tame in comparison...
We need a software that analyzes the various EULAs, gradually memorizes the parts we have read and signed, and highlight those that represent a novelty :D
Next step: give it the signature delegation: "don't bore me anymore"
CYA
I have autism, and I know for a fact the government are trying to cover me up.
You click "Not Agree" and you don't get Wifi. You don't click anything and you're going nowhere, getting nothing.
In the UK, however, there is definite laws against unfair terms and the use of contracts of adhesion also apply. So actually agreeing is only agreeing to negotiate which bits ACTUALLY apply when taken to court for not agreeing with them.
Frankly, I find it just impossible to read every document I have to sign for every-day life. Not because of time but because my brain just wants to melt, flow out my ears and run away.
I think companies should be required to make customers aware of any kinds of things that are part of a contract which are not immediately obvious to a layman.
So the fact that coffee is hot when freshly bought would not apply but if the only reason your internet is so cheap is the fact that you sell my data, then you better put that on the front page or get sued.
However the TOS included a Herold clause that allowed the company to claim the first born child or the beloved pet of the users who agreed.
One of the terms stipulated that the user must give up their firstborn child or most beloved pet in exchange for WiFi use. In the short time the T&C page was active, six people agreed to the outlandish clause.
Link
It won't enforce contracts that are unreasonable or hard to understand. This protects consumers a great deal.
Native Americans signed legally binding contracts without effective communications, so these contracts are also all legally binding.
I don't think the article knows the meaning of "technically legally binding". Such a clause is not technically legally binding as case law has demonstrated consumers are not bound to legal clauses that they don't expect in the normal course of a business.
Can't remember the case myself but it had someone to do with someone trying to get someone else signing over the deed of the house on a delivery slip.
WiFi hotspot EULAs I care least about. For the simple reason that it's very hard to trace back anything I do on that hotspot to me. When connecting to a free WiFi hotspot I usually do this because I have some time on my hands and want to get some work done, not because I want to read legalese. Considering the length of these "agreements" you can probably only get halfway before it's time to move on... leaving you no chance to actually make use of the network.
Include the links next time.
In the UK at least, if you didn't pay, there's no contract.