

Londoners accidentally pay for free Wi-Fi with a firstborn - wslh
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2014/09/29/londoners-accidentally-pay-for-free-wi-fi-with-a-firstborn-because-no-one-reads-anymore/

======
skinnybatch
[http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/may/11/terms-
condition...](http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/may/11/terms-conditions-
small-print-big-problems) The author cites from the above-linked study that
58% of adults surveyed in 2011 would rather read an instruction manual or
credit card bill than online terms and conditions. (I wish that study had
clarified whether they had surveyed an equal number of men and women.) That
link amongst almost every you read regarding reading contracts and whatnot
always advocate reading through word for word, and making sure you understand
_everything._ Two things prohibit this - time and ease of comprehension. If
companies could bullet point, we'd all be able to get through it within a
reasonable amount of time. Those bullet points would hopefully simplify the
language and make clear for those who cite "difficult to understand" as the
reason for why they don't read through terms and conditions. I imagine some
might need to contact legal counsel for explanations every time they want to
sign up for internet, use a new application, or even browse a website. These
fees would be quite costly, and it is arguable that the total damages
associated with failure to reading terms and conditions would not outweigh the
expenditure for ensuring clarity and comprehension through legal counsel.
However, despite the theoretical advocacy for thorough reading, companies do
not actually want us to do this. If they did, I believe they would make it
easier. Lawyers like convoluting things; they like leaving loopholes, and
making language just abstruse and ill-constructed enough to deter even the
most erudite from fully reading anything they've written. (I sound like I hate
lawyers, but I don't. I took the LSAT's thinking maybe I would like to go to
law school to learn that school of thought. But I digress…)

The article about the Londoners is just sad all around. Are they to blame? Are
the companies writing these wandering tomes of terms and conditions? Surely
there has to be a better way to outlay and convey the constructs of these user
agreements.

