3 ms·

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

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
> Time and again courts have upheld click-through TOS and EULAs In the US perhaps. Most other places have consumer protection laws that require a much higher standard for contracts to be legally binding.

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

> Time and again courts have upheld click-through TOS and EULAs In the US perhaps. Most other places have consumer protection laws that require a much higher standard for contracts to be legally binding.