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.
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?
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?"
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.