In article ,
Larry wrote:
>In article <69ggbhF336tu3U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
>
>> Larry wrote:
>> > In article
>> > , MB
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article
>> >> , Larry
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> Have you even read the TOS of you newsserver and isp?
>> >>>
>> >>> I have never accessed information in excess of the authorization
>> >>> granted to me by my ISP. Have you?
>> >>
>> >> How would you know unless you have completely read the terms of
>> >> service to find out what actions are permissible? Plus I did not
>> >> see in the indictment any reference to them trying to get personal
>> >> information about the victim.
>> >>
>> >> Plus this hinges on one knowing what the TOS is, and EVERYONE just
>> >> clicks a box acknowledging the TOS. The TOS should not be valid if
>> >> you can just click a box to acknowledge knowledge.
>> >
>> > How is this different from saying that a written contract shouldn't be
>> > valid if you can just go to the last page and sign it without reading
>> > it?
>> >
>> > We can't force others to read or understand things. What we can do is
>> > require objective, concrete actions that are manifestations of that
>> > understanding. If someone willfully claims to have read or understand
>> > something that they didn't read or don't understand, there's nothing
>> > the law can (or should, IMHO) do to protect them.
>> >
>> > What does that mean? When you sign up for MySpace or an account
>> > virtually anywhere, you have to click a box that usually says
>> > something like "clicking here notes your acceptance of the TOS."
>> > Some sites habev an extra layer of assurance by not letting you check
>> > the box until you click the link to the TOS or scroll to the bottom
>> > of the TOS or the like, but they can't force you to read it.
>> >
>> > If you check the box without reading the TOS, you're setting yourself
>> > up for problems, since you don't even know what you're agreeing with.
>> > Why should the law protect you in this situation?
>>
>> By replying to my posting, you, Lyin' Larry, contractually agree
>> to the following terms and conditions:
>>
>> 1) You will eat one pound of human excrement while
>> typing your response
>> 2) You will do the above with a Chiquita bannana shoved
>> up your ass.
>>
>> Failure to abide by these terms and conditions under the
>> penalty of criminal felony prosecution.
>>
>> If you don't accept the above terms and conditions, then
>> do not post a reply. Your reply shall be deemed an acceptance
>> without modification or condition.
>
>I'm writing this response without abiding by either of your terms and
>conditions.
Can you prove it?
>See if you can get the feds to prosecute me, fool. Or if you have a
>cognizant case for breach of contract.
|