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.
.
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!
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.