Slashdot Mirror
Woman Wins $10,000 For Reading Fine Print of Terms and Conditions of Travel Insurance Policy (npr.org)
Georgia high school teacher Donelan Andrews won a $10,000 reward after she closely read the terms and conditions that came with a travel insurance policy she purchased for a trip to England. Squaremouth, a Florida insurance company, had inserted language promising a reward to the first person who emailed the company. NPR reports: "We understand most customers don't actually read contracts or documentation when buying something, but we know the importance of doing so," the company said. "We created the top-secret Pays to Read campaign in an effort to highlight the importance of reading policy documentation from start to finish." Not every company is so generous. To demonstrate the importance of reading the fine print, many companies don't give; they take. The mischievous clauses tend to pop up from time to time, usually in cheeky England. The report continues to highlight a number of different cases where companies have intentionally inserted unusual clauses into their terms of service, knowing people wouldn't read them. Here's one such case: A few years earlier, several Londoners agreed (presumably inadvertently) to give away their oldest child in exchange for Wi-Fi access. Before they could get on the Internet, users had to check a box agreeing to "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." According to the Guardian, six people signed up, but the company providing the Wi-Fi said the clause likely wouldn't be enforceable in a court of law. "It is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services," the company explained.
The human centipede episode. Enough said.
The problem is they are very long, and often express very little. They are mostly defining the terms used, and written in a way to avoid loopholes...
Which I understand why, because people will find ways around contracts, however, this makes the document increasingly difficult to follow and for many to really understand for a simple topic.
Most software Terms of services.
1. Don't give a copy to someone else
2. Don't sue us if something goes wrong
Of course these simple terms one can be tricky. By Copy, That means I can manipulate a readme file so it is no longer a copy.
Can I sue if you Something goes right. Or that copy from my friend with that newer license.txt file didn't state anything about not suing you.
There are too many people trying to trick the system, vs just enduring it.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The problem is, that the T&C are *deliberately* written to hide as many pitfalls as physically possible, so that an any conceivable case, *you* are the one who is duped, and they always have a "get out of jail free" card for when they fuck up, so that they only have to point at the T&C, and go "But you knew and agreed to this impossible-to-interpret-that-way-until-you-are-told-and-then-convincingly-'obvious' term right there on page 24 referring to page 2 and 9 indirectly as stated on page 13, all in 6pt font!".
It's the brainchild of a sociopathic (actually aka psychopathic) mind that has only a single goal and no qualms of walking over dead bodies, if it gets away with it and there is a buck to be made.
I mean, it's all very well and good that they stepped up and paid it out, but can someone explain why the company would actually obligated be obligated to honor such terms?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Whos laughing now?
I'rr take the cuttrefish and aspargus!
That episode funny only to those who don't read T&C.
Because if you actually do, which I did, you quickly realize that you CAN. NOT. READ. IT.!
It is like reading the Necronomicon. You can make the sounds, but the words and sentences make no sense, but to unleash the vile spirits from Hell, Hell & McGill, to torment you for profit.
The most common clause that I've come across is one for photographs. F*ckbook is one that "owns" any photos uploaded to the site. It's actually written quite clearly in the UA. Once I found that out, I started looking more closely at places that asked me to upload photos.
I was trying to get some large prints made up of some photos that I had taken. Most places will only do up to a certain size in shop; for larger prints, I was asked to upload a copy of the file to their corporate website, the image would be made to the size requested and then sent to the local store for pickup. After reading through the agreement prior to uploading the picture, I found these places all claim to own the picture once uploaded. These were places like Walmart, Costco, Black's Photography... they all had the same clause.
I know what some of you are thinking... who the fuck cares... for me it was the principle of it. This is my picture, and if by some slim chance I take an absolutely perfect picture that someone wants to purchase, I would risk getting sued because anyplace that I've uploaded it to could claim copyright on it.
I still skim over UA's or EUA's every now and again. However, I more times than not, I read them... we can always use reading material on the shitter...
Whenever some cunty software author or website forces me to click a button to "accept" their insane, lengthy bullshit, I *only* do so to get the obnoxious garbage out of my view -- I don't accept anythin whatsoever that the wall of text says.
This world is absolutely packed full of lies and bullshit. I wish the most painful and slow death upon all those who perpetuate this idiocy by, for example, forcing the user to "agree" to miles of text that not only won't be read by anyone -- it's the height of rudeness to *pretend* as if this will be done, is sane in any way, or entitles you to do anything whatsoever. Fuck off. If you can't state exactly what your stupid software is all about in a couple of simple-English sentences, tops, I'm not going to pay any attention whatsoever to it.
I don't agree to you doing anything whatsoever to me or my computer other than what you advertise that the software is intended to do.
It is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services
No UNPAID services... indentured servitude is alive and well.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In more than 99% of all cases where TOSs are used they can be sumed up as so...
We own the thing
You get to use this thing at our discretion
The thing is what it is and you can't change that no matter what you think
We might change this thing and if we do we will make notice
You can't sue us cause you used this thing
We wont sue you cause you used this thing (this is more wishful thinking on my part)
But that is it. It really is this simple.
Fuck Lawyers
Fuck Greed!
Fuck the im'a sue you mentality.
that reward went unclaimed? How long was it our there before someone noticed?
This alway annoys me with T&C.
They are like anti-virus software. A black list. By definition always outdated and incomplete.
A list instead of a formula that encompasses all of it. A black one instead of a white one too by necessity of how our society works.
Don't fuckin say "Don't make a copy Not via DVD, CD, tape, vinyl, wax cylinder, papyrus, stone slab, nor via hard disk, SSD, Ethernet, Fibre Channel, ...".
Just fuckin say "Don't make a copy!"
(Of course this is a bad example, since copyright licenses are by definition self-contradicting nonsense that's incompatible with physical reality, and information/data cannot be consumed without making at least one, if not countless copies. But that requires understanding how a computer works, how the laws of information work, and not having more cocaine-induced paradoid over-confident greed than common sense or morals or qualms or empathy or will to do honest work for the money received.)
"I decline, and go fuck yourselves!"
Then I click that.
The next version will add screenshots to "prove" you never ageed.
Oh, and your server gave me that web page without any T&C. I just asked nicely (HTTP GET). So I am not bound by any T&C regardig what I do and do not to with that page's data.
(I could use a voice browser that reads me the text or whatever. Which can't even "display" layout or images.)
When I bought my house, they typically give you an hour or two to read through the closure/escrow documents in their office. I read through every single page and found an error. They said "oh! that's obviously wrong! we've been using this contract for five years now, and you're the first one to have noticed it!"
(it wasn't anything particularly serious - not a case of them asking for something unreasonable. It was just clearly a nonsensical clause.)
We are constantly bombarded with this shit and it changes. Back when I actually had a an eBay and PayPal accounts, every fucking month there was an update. One month those fuckers said, "If you don't agree to this agreement, you automatically agree to it; otherwise terminate your account." - so, I did.
More and more businesses are forcing people into binding arbitration - arbitration panels filled with their cronies and with no chance for the consumer to get a fair hearing.
There needs to be a federal law prohibiting forced arbitration.
A few years earlier, several Londoners agreed (presumably inadvertently) to give away their oldest child in exchange for Wi-Fi access. Before they could get on the Internet, users had to check a box agreeing to "assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity." According to the Guardian, six people signed up, but the company providing the Wi-Fi said the clause likely wouldn't be enforceable in a court of law. "It is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services," the company explained.
Haha... Dear company, thank you for assuming the responsibility of raising my offspring, please make child support checks payable to John Smith and send them to 123 Easy St, Anytown, Anystate 12345 USA.
Obviously they spend their customers' money on frivolous things. Those $10000 have to come from somewhere.
admittedly with a prize significantly lower than 10k, but still a valuable prize. But I did not put the text into some "terms & conditions" jungle, but in the monthly reports that I am asked to write by the supervisor of my supervisor, which is "assumed" to be read by everyone reporting to that supervisor. Guess what, so far no winner found my competition text. But I won a lot of time learning how stupid it would be of me to put significant effort into these reports. They just need to fill a page.
Ideally, contracts that are not approved by lawyers on both sides need to be vetted and rated by a government lawyer. Any unusual terms would have to be high lighted and moved to a summary in the first paragraph, along with a general grade, from AF.
Any terms that the government lawyer deems unenforceable or illegal would automatically grant an F. Corporations routinely put in terms that most lawyers consider to be unenforceable as a form of intimidation.
President Trump's loyalty gag contracts (https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/trumps-unlawful-gag-orders-and-why-he-cant-handle-the-truth/) are just one example of such tactics. No other President used such terms, and the majority of experienced lawyers state they are a violation of the first amendment (I.E. The government can not prevent speech).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com