Free Wi Fi service?

[angus]

A good Wi-Fi network is hard to find.  According to this Washinton Post article, six Londoners were willing to trade their first-born child for the service.  An excerpt:


In an experiment sponsored by security firm F-Secure, an open Wi-Fi network was set up in a busy public area. When people connected, they were presented with lengthy terms and conditions.

But to see just how little attention we pay when checking that agreement box, F-Secure included a "Herod clause" -- one that offered up free Wi-Fi in exchange for the company's permanent ownership of the user's firstborn child.

The experiment was intended to highlight the dangers of connecting to unknown Wi-Fi networks...

[Paul Kemp]

It's not really free then, is it?

[Grumpier Than Thou]

All of the above + tentative rights to the nuts of the first born child should it be a male.

[angus]

It's not really free then, is it?

not really.

I think that's what the article was about.  The poll was silly, of course, but the subject is not.  It's about how we never read the fine print.  I have to admit that I'm guilty as well.  If I'm in an airport and want to get free wi-fi, because maybe I only have an hour to kill between flights and my life won't be complete unless I learn the latest wisdom that opebo is giving to Red, for example, then I madly dash through all the obligatory screens to get to uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/, hardly paying attention to the things that I have agreed to for the privilege of obtaining such wisdom.

Granted, they don't usually ask for your 'nads, or the progeny provided by them, but they often do ask you to agree to some lurking by the owner, and it's in the fine print where you agree to pay the bill for the "free" service.  It's really up to you to read that fine print.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

It's becoming abundantly clear that all Americans should have a right to internet service free of charge.  It's truly quite essential anymore. 

[dead0man]

If you're using someone else's wifi (free or not) you can be "lurked" upon.  If you don't want to be lurked upon, don't use other people's internet.  It's like privacy and the internet in general....if you use it, you might not have it.

[angus]

If nothing else, it has made me curious.  I think I just may read the login page, even clicking on the agreement before checking "I agree" the next time I'm at a public wifi hotspot.

[memphis]

I have unlimited (crappy) data on my phone, so this is never really an issue for me.

[MaxQue]

The issue isn't people. It's than companies are allowed to had crucial elements in legalese.

There should be a law forcing them to write a short summary in plain language giving the broad lines.

[angus]

There should be a law forcing them to write a short summary in plain language giving the broad lines.

I'm normally not the litigious type, but I think I agree with that.  I don't take my phone anywhere--certainly not on vacation--but I always take at least one tablet and one laptop.  So many times I tapped into the hotel's "free Wi Fi" to enjoy the fruits of the great minds of our age, including the enlightened posters on the Atlas Forum.  Do I read the pages I click through when I sign on?  Does a bear shit on a toilet?  Why would anyone click on the "terms of agreement" button and download a 97-page document written in six-point, single-page font? 

Yes, it would be nice to know that "free" Wifi means free wifi, and a concise, one-page, normal-sized font document explaining the rules would be nice.

[dead0man]

Even if the terms are as simple as a the Freshman wearing a Che shirt it doesn't mean you can't still be "lurked" upon.  If the wifi is free to you, it's also free to Kim Fatcom and Little Johnny Script Kiddie, either of which can do "Bad Things"^TM to your smart phone or laptop.

[angus]

Good points also.  (This is why I'm the infamous moderate hero.)  That aside, isn't it fair to say that people should read what they agree to if reading what they agree to is reasonable?  If it is unreasonable, then can it be made reasonable?  That is, if Lil Kim steals my money because I'm a dumbass, then I'm out of luck, but if he comes to my door saying that I owe him one healthy, newborn human, then I should have some recourse in light of the fact that I clicked on "I agree" following a 97-page pdf that no one has ever read?

[dead0man]

Has sh**t hidden in a long "terms and conditions" ever hardcore boned a regular person before?  I thought there had been a case or several that made sure people and businesses couldn't do that.

[angus]

Has sh**t hidden in a long "terms and conditions" ever hardcore boned a regular person before? 

Before these six people in London?  I don't know, but copycat entrepreneurs are out there, and it won't take long before someone thinks he can make an easy living offering "free wifi."