4 ms·

https://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/how-to/wp8/connectivity/use-wi-fi-sense-to-get-connected https://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/how-to/wp8/connectivity/u... >..

https://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/how-to/wp8/connectivity/use-wi-fi-sense-to-get-connected https://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/how-to/wp8/connectivity/u... >... WiFi Sense can do a lot of things for you to get you connected to the Internet using WiFi, so you don't have to do them on your own. These include:... > - Accepting a WiFi network's terms of use on your behalf... That doesn't seem appropriate.

fdahgrthkn 11y ago
That's the only part that seems kind of cool. It's legally a bit strange, but terms of use on public Wi-Fi can be really annoying, especially when they don't work well. I've had networks refuse to let me on because their terms of use thing is broken. It isn't as though anyone actually reads the terms of use anyway.
- Zekio 11y ago
  I agree with you on this, I've had same problem when trying to connect to a Hotel Wi-Fi and my browser didn't render their properly because i didn't have Windows XP with IE 7... Probably the best feature of Wi-Fi Sense.
superuser2 11y ago
On the contrary, dealing with captive portals is quite annoying, especially since they just generate browser warnings with HTTPS. You have to go out of your way to open a plain-HTTP website so that it can be intercepted properly, just so you can click "I accept" again. Additionally, these things have short memories - if you're at a coffee shop you frequent, you might be clicking through the captive portal for the 150th time. Apple deals with this somewhat by opening a Webkit view of apple.com (unsecured) and displaying it the user if it's not in fact apple.com. But an even further level of automation would be great. Let's be honest, no one reads these things anyway. If you're one of the handful of people in the world who would decide not to use a WiFi network because you didn't like its TOS, then you're 1) probably not running Windows anyway and 2) could turn this feature off.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Yeah but, you're basically agreeing to assume risk. You still get a choice - you choose to ignore the TOS and click through. Time and again courts have upheld click-through TOS and EULAs. Ignorance is rarely an excuse. So if something clicks through a captive portal for you, the defense of "I didn't know..." isn't going to hold much water. The only defense might be that Microsoft accepted the terms and they should accept responsibility for any violations on their behalf. But good luck getting them to voluntarily indemnify you.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    There's a pretty big difference between "it was too long and I didn't read it so I just clicked Agree at the bottom" and "I had no idea the thing was even there because Microsoft's software hid it from me." If there was no reasonable way for you to even know the terms were there at all, I don't think any court is going to consider them to be binding. That's why these places show them to you when you try to use their network, instead of just hiding them in the freezer.
    - SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
      Accessing a computer network that is secured by requiring authentication by bypassing authentication via technical means might be a computer crime. It's quite possible that using the Microsoft software to bypass a captive portal without agreeing to the terms will land you in jail for a felony. Is Microsoft going to indemnify you against being the trial case of that legal theory?
      - smeyer 11y ago
        >It's quite possible that using the Microsoft software to bypass a captive portal without agreeing to the terms will land you in jail for a felony. How do you define "quite possible"? I'd estimate that this is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
  - speleding 11y ago
JimmaDaRustla 11y ago
Only if you've already accepted the terms of use initially, this is fine. I'd love this feature - connecting to all the open wifi connections around downtown and then letting my phone/laptop log me in through their terms of use acceptance pages (looking at you Tim Horton's) seamlessly.

fdahgrthkn 11y ago

That's the only part that seems kind of cool. It's legally a bit strange, but terms of use on public Wi-Fi can be really annoying, especially when they don't work well. I've had networks refuse to let me on because their terms of use thing is broken. It isn't as though anyone actually reads the terms of use anyway.

Zekio 11y ago
I agree with you on this, I've had same problem when trying to connect to a Hotel Wi-Fi and my browser didn't render their properly because i didn't have Windows XP with IE 7... Probably the best feature of Wi-Fi Sense.

superuser2 11y ago

On the contrary, dealing with captive portals is quite annoying, especially since they just generate browser warnings with HTTPS. You have to go out of your way to open a plain-HTTP website so that it can be intercepted properly, just so you can click "I accept" again. Additionally, these things have short memories - if you're at a coffee shop you frequent, you might be clicking through the captive portal for the 150th time. Apple deals with this somewhat by opening a Webkit view of apple.com (unsecured) and displaying it the user if it's not in fact apple.com. But an even further level of automation would be great. Let's be honest, no one reads these things anyway. If you're one of the handful of people in the world who would decide not to use a WiFi network because you didn't like its TOS, then you're 1) probably not running Windows anyway and 2) could turn this feature off.

themartorana 11y ago
Yeah but, you're basically agreeing to assume risk. You still get a choice - you choose to ignore the TOS and click through. Time and again courts have upheld click-through TOS and EULAs. Ignorance is rarely an excuse. So if something clicks through a captive portal for you, the defense of "I didn't know..." isn't going to hold much water. The only defense might be that Microsoft accepted the terms and they should accept responsibility for any violations on their behalf. But good luck getting them to voluntarily indemnify you.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There's a pretty big difference between "it was too long and I didn't read it so I just clicked Agree at the bottom" and "I had no idea the thing was even there because Microsoft's software hid it from me." If there was no reasonable way for you to even know the terms were there at all, I don't think any court is going to consider them to be binding. That's why these places show them to you when you try to use their network, instead of just hiding them in the freezer.
  - SomeStupidPoint 11y ago
    Accessing a computer network that is secured by requiring authentication by bypassing authentication via technical means might be a computer crime. It's quite possible that using the Microsoft software to bypass a captive portal without agreeing to the terms will land you in jail for a felony. Is Microsoft going to indemnify you against being the trial case of that legal theory?
    - smeyer 11y ago
      >It's quite possible that using the Microsoft software to bypass a captive portal without agreeing to the terms will land you in jail for a felony. How do you define "quite possible"? I'd estimate that this is exceedingly unlikely to happen.
- speleding 11y ago

JimmaDaRustla 11y ago

Only if you've already accepted the terms of use initially, this is fine. I'd love this feature - connecting to all the open wifi connections around downtown and then letting my phone/laptop log me in through their terms of use acceptance pages (looking at you Tim Horton's) seamlessly.