From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Mon May 20 2002 - 12:16:22 MDT
On Monday, May 20, 2002, at 10:35 am, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sun, 19 May 2002, Harvey Newstrom wrote:
>
>> If they get virtually all of their business from people who don't know
>> it, and virtually none from people who understand the contract,
>> something seems wrong. There must be some legal limit to contracts
>
> Why? You have to deal with the consequences of the decisions you do.
Yes, but these contracts bind people to all the provisions of their
"privacy policy" without stating what they are. Further, they allow
them to change the contents of their "privacy policy" without notice.
In affect, they are trying to get people contractually bound to stuff
they add later. This is just plain wrong. They also allow people to
request a copy of the policy at any time, but they don't always know
when it changes. It is possible to be contractually bound to terms one
has never seen before. This is not right. A legal contract must have a
meeting of the minds as to what is agreed. If a contract is being
amended in some way, it needs to be clearly announced, and the
contractors required to affirm or reject the new contract.
> As you mentioned, most people do not care enough to find out they've
> been
> swindled. There are always more ethical alternatives around, some of
> them
> -- omg -- even for pay. By continue to do business with someone who
> defaulted on the contract (their every own terms of usage) you're
> clearly
> advertising the fact that you're either clueless, or don't mind being
> cheated.
Most people don't realize what is going on. The outrage occurs when
they find out. Eventually, people will get tired of this stuff and
start fighting it.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:14 MST