Brits agree to give up First-born kids for free Wi-fi

[Hum]

A handful of Britons recently learned a very valuable lesson: read the fine print.

Like many online users who've encountered that "Terms & Conditions" page, a few Londoners joined a public Wi-Fi hotspot and carelessly clicked through, according to CBS News -- and it could have cost them.

By mindlessly accepting the terms and conditions, users missed the "Herod clause" promising free Wi-Fi but only if "the recipient agreed to assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity," according to The Guardian.

Six people actually signed up.

The stunt, organized by the Cyber Security Research Institute, was intended to place a spotlight on some of the major risks associated with public Wi-Fi networks, according to TIME.

It sounds like a sick joke, but don't worry -- no firstborns were harmed in the pursuit of free Wi-Fi.

"As this is an experiment, we will be returning the children to their parents," Finnish security firm, F-Secure, which sponsored the research, said in its report. "While terms and conditions are legally binding, it is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services, so the clause would not be enforceable in a court of law."

Next time, make sure you really do agree before hitting "I Agree." :shifty:

 

source

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

Hah this reminds me of the South Park episode all about Apple's T&C's

[Nick H. Supervisor]

I will agree to read through all of the terms and conditions that I need to agree to for each and every thing that I use if they bring in a rule that allows me an extra month of paid holiday needed in order to read through them all. Although that number would appear to be just for the websites that I use in a year, so my terms and conditions on this may be subject to change. ;)

[timster]

Hah this reminds me of the South Park episode all about Apple's T&C's

 

it's only matter of time before the human centiPad becomes an actual thing

[LaP]

A handful of Britons recently learned a very valuable lesson: read the fine print.

Like many online users who've encountered that "Terms & Conditions" page, a few Londoners joined a public Wi-Fi hotspot and carelessly clicked through, according to CBS News -- and it could have cost them.

By mindlessly accepting the terms and conditions, users missed the "Herod clause" promising free Wi-Fi but only if "the recipient agreed to assign their first born child to us for the duration of eternity," according to The Guardian.

Six people actually signed up.

The stunt, organized by the Cyber Security Research Institute, was intended to place a spotlight on some of the major risks associated with public Wi-Fi networks, according to TIME.

 

This would not hold in a court of law.

 

""While terms and conditions are legally binding,"

 

This is not 100% true. From what i know things like EULA and terms and confitions of use has never been actually tested in a court of law for things outside of what would be considered a normal use case. If a big company would write in its EULAs or terms and conditions of use that you agree to give them all your money i bet you everything this company would not win in a court of law over it.

 

 

Controversial assumptions of electronic signature

Further information: Shrink wrap contract, Clickwrap and Browse wrap

Some web sites and software EULAs contain terms that assert that various electronic and other actions give rise to legally effective signatures. For example, a web page might announce that, by accessing the site at all, you have agreed to a certain set of terms and conditions. A software product might assert, in its packaging or on an early installation screen, that by using it you have agreed to licensing terms. These may or may not have been discernible prior to sale, and may or may not be completely displayed even at installation.

In regard to a prominent limitation typically imposed in EULAs: Such licenses often include such restrictions as a prohibition of reviewing the product for publication (electronic or otherwise) without prior permission of the publisher/distributor, or prohibition on studying the product (i.e., reverse engineering) for an otherwise lawful purpose such as producing data files in a compatible format. Some such claims would appear to be contrary to patent law (which requires public disclosure as a condition of granting a patent) or to copyright law which does the same for works available to the public, or to contract law which requires informed knowing assent to reasonable contract terms as a condition of enforceability in court. Only if all such covered matters are trade secrets would many such clauses appear sustainable, but even so a condition of trade secrecy is maintenance of the secret by the holder. This may not be met in the case of a widely distributed product offered for sale to anyone.

By legal system

 

The legal status of such claims is uncertain. In the US, only two states have adopted a new revision of the Uniform Commercial Code which authorize such licensing restrictions, with disclosure after purchase. The validity of such terms remains uncertain, despite the views of many EULA authors. Analogies to the physical world in which contracts and signatures are written, signed, and stored in tangible form suggest that analogous terms would not be acceptable.

Returning to the subject of the validity of a contract's existence (as determined by its means of creation): Courts in the UK have taken the view that online contracts are no different from (a) offline ones or (b) ones made electronically at a distance by telex, fax, or morse-code telegraphy, and accordingly can be valid subject to all the usual contract principles: there must be offer, acceptance, contractual intention and certainty as to terms. Contract terms must be available before acceptance, as established in the 1971 case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking Ltd where a contract was entered into with a machine before terms were known (and therefore those terms were not binding).

In any event any contract is subject to tests of reasonableness (and in the case of contracts with consumers, "fairness") under the Unfair Contract Terms Act and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. In addition under the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002 (SI 2002/2013) and Distance Selling Regulations there are requirements to make the steps required to conclude the contract clear, and rights to revoke contracts within certain periods and subject to certain limits. Many of these laws and regulations arise from EU Directives and Regulations so are broadly replicated throughout the European Economic Area. Generally the courts have treated this more as a matter of acceptance by conduct than signature.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_signature

[francescob]

"While terms and conditions are legally binding, it is contrary to public policy to sell children in return for free services, so the clause would not be enforceable in a court of law."

 

in other words, "see you in hell" :devil:

[Hum]

I just won't have kids. :p

[timster]

I just won't have kids. :p

no WiFi for you!