Consumers agree to give up first-born child for free Wi-Fi – survey Consumers carelessly use public Wi-Fi without regard for their personal privacy, even blithely agreeing to surrender their first born in exchange for the opportunity to check their emails without paying. That's according to an experiment which involved setting up a "poisoned" Wi-Fi hotspot. Unsuspecting users who connected to …
I never do, and even if people can be bothered the agreement is often not formatted to be read easily on a tiny phone screen. I just tick "yes" to everything. Does it really matter when everything I care about is via SSL or some other encryption.
Good luck trying to enforce the favourite pet thing as well.
And why would anyone? Most T&Cs simply boil down to "we may abuse you any and every way we can", the rest is ensuring they are immune from complaints and devoid of responsibilities.
The only time I read T&Cs is to check exactly how I will be abused, particularly regarding copyright as many claim rights over anything and everything with respect to their service.
There's anecdotal evidence about something similar having been done by one of our colleagues back at the uni - allegedly he snuck the sentence "if you are reading this, a box of beer is yours" somewhere halfway into his diploma thesis he was doing with one of the more easy-going professors. Needless to say, the beers were never collected...
My brother had a Professor once, who inserted into the instructions for an exam a line that said "If you have read these instructions to this point, then you may get up, bring the exam paper to the front of the room, and you may leave. You will receive a top mark. Thank you."
He was only one of two or three students who actually read the instructions and left. The rest of the class had no idea why they left the room...until after they finished the exam.
Any chance that Ofcom could enforce a standard set of T's and C's for public WiFi- so the acceptance page could be a very simple line stating both provider and user abide by Ofcom's T's and C's.
Assuming we'd have faith of Ofcom providing something reasonable?
Who the heck ever reads the shrink wrap agreements? We're all in overload when the standard agreement pops up every bloody time we install the weekly Flash update or access agreement. This has to change - how would be manage to do anything if this type of "requirement" was extended into everyday life?
Want to use the Tube? Please click on you acceptance of our T&C.
A pint of Bitter sir? Please click on you acceptance of our T&C.
Ordering lunch? The restaurant T&C must be accepted before you can place an order.
Where's Dick the Butcher (''The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers,') when you need him? He's probably reading the Terms and Conditions.
Tickets used to have a blanket agreement on the back, accepting their T&Cs which were, on display somewhere or other (what was that line from Hitchiker?). Basically it said that by purchasing the ticket you agreed to give them some money and they promised to give you pretty much nothing, not even a ride on their bus/tube, unless it suited them.
Funnily enough, when you go into the carpark of my local shops, there's a big list of Ts&Cs. The text is too small to read unless you're right next to it & if you do stop to read it, you get honked by the cars in back. Are they enforceable? I would hope not, because I've never been able to read them... Imagine the things I could have agreed to just by driving through the boom gates.
Similar thing for my local movie theatre.
Unenforceable term is unenforceable.
The reason for this become clear towards the end "using products such as Hotspot Shield or F-Secure's Freedome."
It's not even journalism, it's a PR piece to peddle products. As these products are closed-source the consumer *STILL* has no real idea what they do. Obscurity is not security.
El Reg - Epic fail once again. Still, makes a change from pushing the usual MS propaganda.
" Non-story
Unenforceable term is unenforceable."
Oh you are special, can't you see that it's just to prove a point? The researchers wouldn't want 250 first born children as a result of the experiment.
Think, if you can, of a coffee shop doing a similar thing with their T's & C's regarding their WiFi. They could easily put "To use this WiFi you agree to providing this coffee shop with your full name and address, bank details, and you also agree to setting up a standing order of £10 a month to use this WiFi". Realistically, you wouldn't accept these terms. But if you do, you couldn't then say to the judge "Your hounor, I didn't read the small print". Tough shit, you agreed to this to use the WiFi. Pony up.
Now, can you see where this non-MS propaganda is going?
"They could easily put "To use this WiFi you agree to providing this coffee shop with your full name and address, bank details, and you also agree to setting up a standing order of £10 a month to use this WiFi". Realistically, you wouldn't accept these terms. But if you do, you couldn't then say to the judge "Your hounor, I didn't read the small print". Tough shit, you agreed to this to use the WiFi. Pony up."
Oh dear god, they have let the children out to pay today. No, that is manifestly NOT what would happen. To begin with, those terms are not reasonable (i.e. a reasonable person would not expect them to be there). As such they are going to have to be obvious. Very obvious. To the point of needing entry at the time of use, not after the fact.
Burying them many paragraphs down would allow the defence of "I didn't know that was there". This is a completely valid defence as shysters /have/ in the past tried to hide additional terms (on the back, in an addendum, whatever). Judges throw this crap out.
By reading this post you have agreed to pay me £10. Pony up. See...that kinda crap just doesn't fly.
"Oh dear god, they have let the children out to pay today. No, that is manifestly NOT what would happen. To begin with, those terms are not reasonable (i.e. a reasonable person would not expect them to be there). As such they are going to have to be obvious. Very obvious. To the point of needing entry at the time of use, not after the fact.
Burying them many paragraphs down would allow the defence of "I didn't know that was there". This is a completely valid defence as shysters /have/ in the past tried to hide additional terms (on the back, in an addendum, whatever). Judges throw this crap out.
By reading this post you have agreed to pay me £10. Pony up. See...that kinda crap just doesn't fly."
Yes, the Kid is out and he's correct.
I have never once seen T's & C's that you can just read. You agree to them. You click "agree" to carry on. You agree to the terms set out. This is enforceable. It's the same as when you read the T's & C's of software you install, that you won't use it for commerical use. You agree to it, you use the software. So if that software was used for commercial purposes, although you agreed to the T's & C's that it wouldn't, the software company can sue your arse.
They are a legal thing. Just because you think it's unreasonable doesn't mean jack shit to anyone. Your solicitor can argue all day about it not being reasonable, but if the other party have a solicitor with a better argument than yours, they will win.
Simple. As. That.
"Just because you think it's unreasonable doesn't mean jack shit to anyone."
Actually, quite a lot of law is based on what a 'reasonable' person would do in a given situation or assume. This fictional 'reasonable' person /could be/ a lay-person (like for Ts&Cs) or an expert (like for when you hire a lawyer to check a contract).
Tough clauses big-n-bold? A reasonable person would either agree or walk away.
Those clauses hidden on para 3,298? No reasonable person would expect to find tough crap down there, a reasonable person would expect such things to be made obvious.
If you can argue that to the judge, then they will be happy to print out the Ts&Cs, roll them up and ram them right up the appropriate orifice.
"Do you suppose it might just possibly have been put there simply to demonstrate that nobody reads the damned Ts&Cs? Rather than considerations of how legally enforceable the term might not be?"
Sigh.
If the Ts&Cs are not clear and simple enough for a lay person to reasonably follow, and that's who we are talking about here - you and me, not some fancy lawyer; then they are totally and utterly unenforceable regardless of what they may say. All that would apply are statutory and "reasonable" terms as determined by a judge.
*IF*, however, the terms were clear (i.e. plain language and a couple of short paragraphs) then they are more likely to be enforceable.
But they are not. They are impenetrable cobble-de-gook and utterly unenforceable. Only *fear* on the part of the user gives them any coercive power and that fear is what it would cost to defend their freedoms.
Joke Ts&Cs are ok, but there are some really bad ones out there that you should only accept in the most dire circumstances. For instance, the ones that state you must give 12 months notice of any variation in use. That one was very ugly, especially in view of the intransigence of the company concerned. And you know that the company will be very, very intransigent when you read the Ts&Cs. But oh, no, you didn't read them, did you?
Long way of saying that there are a lot of people out there doing things that would be very unwise if anybody took them seriously. Perhaps what we need to do is have a law that these click-through Ts&Cs are completely invalid.
"By reading this post you have agreed to pay me £10. Pony up. See...that kinda crap just doesn't fly."
One final point about the above comment: you can't prove I read the post. What you mean is "by clicking ok, you agree to pay $10".
"you will take my first born whether you like it or not"
Just make sure that you provide a Ts&Cs for them to sign when you turn him/her over, stipulating a one Billion (Beellion!) pound restocking fee should they realise what a terrible, horrible mistake that they've made and wish to return him/her!
Most seem to go out of their way to block or otherwise mess with VPN traffic, probably because it interferes with their ability to push ad-laden landing pages and (worse) embed ads in web pages people are browsing. I hardly ever bother now, and just use a mobile data connection whenever possible.
Even that doesn't solve the issue depending on where you are. Try visiting parts of Asia (yes, I know, outside the scope of most El Reg readers) and they're injecting popup ads directly into my web browsing. I've taken to using OpenVPN on my own phone over a 3G connection whilst abroad, it's ridiculous.
The option to mark saved wi-fi connections as trusted (i.e. home or work ones where you'd happily sync your e-mail, contacts, calendar, and so on, and update apps and the phone) or untrusted just suitable for something like a quick browse to find train times.
Endless pages of Ts & Cs piss me off no end. They need to be made more straightforward and easier to read. None of this "...nothwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph 4 subsection 2 and persuant to..." bollocks.
Where's the Plain English Campaign when you freekin' need them?
"Where's the Plain English Campaign when you freekin' need them?"
The problem with the PEC is that they're trying to bolt the stable door long after the horse has gone. UK legislation is (for the most part) incompetently drafted in wilfully arcane and confusing language by civil servants, and the Wasters of Westminster never refuse to rubber stamp poorly drafted laws. In most cases I'd wager they haven't even read the bills they are voting on.
Do you think your MP knows what this tiny, tiny snippet means:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/52
As long as the language of the law is unintelligible, then T&Cs will be similarly opaque, and trying to mop up afterwards is always going to be doomed to failure.
UK legislation is (for the most part) incompetently drafted in wilfully arcane and confusing language
I disagree. For the most part, legislation is *very* competently drafted.
The trouble is, it usually isn't doing what it claims to be doing. So the Emergency Anti-Terror Legislation gets thrown through parliament (because it's important, right?), only for the rest of us to find out after the fact that it's just about increasing snooping powers for petty bureaucrats.
To claim this is incompetent assumes that the end result wasn't the goal all the time...
Vic.
"Where's the Plain English Campaign "
Plain English isn't the problem, although it is an essential start. The problem is that they go on for so long and put apalling restrictions on the buyer. A few suggestions:
1. Any terms that go over to the 2nd page are treated as being ommitted.
2. Ts&Cs must be restricted to obligations the vendor is providing.'
3. Any Ts&Cs requiring anything from the purchaser must be provided in a formal contract, not a click-through.
4. Ts&Cs should be limitted to certain Parliament-approved conditions, such as copyright restrictions & number of licences purchased.
5. Finally, Ts&Cs can't be used to take standard rights off the purchaser.
"the researchers found that the text of emails sent over a POP3 network could be read, as could the addresses of the sender and recipient, and even the password of the sender"
No. POP3 is not a network. Of course the addresses are visible if you can see the text of the email (one blank line is the only difference between email headers and body). But POP3 will NEVER reveal the password of the sender (unless they put it in the content of the email) - POP3 is a RECIPIENT side connection.
Of course, people who have unsecured POP3 set up will almost certainly have the equivalent SMTP too, but that's not what the article says.
To a point, you are correct. However, the recipient's credentials can be sniffed since POP3 is normally a cleartext connection that requires a login. That's why most ISPs are adding in the STARTTLS extension which allows for transitioning to a secured connection before authentication occurs.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
