Let me know what you think about this anti-corporate strategy

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday March 20, 2014 · 12:57 PM PDT

2014/03/20 · 12:57

This is a semi-serious response strategy to combat one-sided "terms and conditions" that are imposed by website operators.

The humorous part to me is that the site operator could have to make an argument that "we didn't read that...how could we possibly be expected to keep track of emails, etc." The opposite of what they generally argue when seeking to enforce their ridiculous terms.

1. The first element is to have an use an email address such as "i.do.not.agree,see.counteroffer@xyz"rong

2. When a confirmation email is sent to that address, you respond with either an email or a link to the terms of your counteroffer.

For our lawyer readers, does such a gambit create 'offer and acceptance?' Does the email utilized at least cast doubt on one's agreement to a site's terms? What if the confirmation email is "do.not.respond@abc?"

As for the terms:
====================

Counteroffer:
All terms of service proposed by you are rejected. By allowing access to your site, you acknowledge that you accept these terms and conditions.

AS USED HEREIN, THE TERMS “YOU” AND “SITE” SHALL MEAN ANY PERSON OR ENTITY MAINTAINING OR CONTROLLING ANY INTERNET WEBSITE TO WHICH NOTICE OF THIS COUNTEROFFER HAS BEEN TRANSMITTED. THE TERMS "USER," "ME" AND "I"...etc.

BY PERMITTING ACCESS (OR CONTINUED ACCESS) TO SITE, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE, FROM TIME TO TIME IN OUR SOLE DISCRETION. WE WILL NOTIFY YOU OF AMENDMENTS TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS BY POSTING THEM TO THIS WEBSITE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE WITH THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, PLEASE DO NOT PERMIT ACCESS TO WEBSITE.

You will not

    Use any of the data to which I give you access or transmit to you for anything other than giving me access to it and publishing my comments, if any;
    store logs of any information about me, except my comments and login information, if any.
    cache my data
    Place cookies on my computer
    give away, transfer, or sell any of my information.
    Send me email advertisements or permit others to do so.
The terms of this contract are subject to the laws of the State of _____, and shall be adjudicated in _____ County ______.

You agree to pay liquidated damages in the amount of $100 for each breach hereof...etc.

The party in breach of this agreement shall pay reasonable costs and attorney fees for enforcement hereof...etc

If any part of this agreement is ruled invalid, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.

You agree that my failure to exercise, or any delay in exercising, any right or remedy provided under this agreement or by law shall not constitute a waiver of that or any other right or remedy, nor shall it preclude or restrict any further exercise of that or any other right or remedy.

This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof...etc.

Copyright notices...etc.

Any thoughts?

What should be added?

Healthcare Constitutional Issues Solved!

scotchleaf

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday March 31, 2012 · 4:46 AM PDT

2012/03/31 · 04:46

The Republicans all agree that there is a vast distinction between car insurance and health insurance, because you can choose to not buy a car, etc.

I propose that the ACA be amended to address the GOP's heartfelt desire the defend the Constitution. Make health insurance mandatory if you want to use the Interstate Highway System (or the telephone system or internet). Your driver's license could double as your insurance card. All Federal highway funds could be withheld from non-complaint states.

After all, you can choose not to use the highways or telecommunications system, right?

So the Republicans' sincere hand-wringing about the imminent fall of the Republic due to Federal overreaching would be satisfied.

scotchleaf

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 15, 2011 · 9:21 PM PST

2011/12/15 · 21:21

Tonight a story in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye. Look carefully at some of the statements that came out of the settlement:

Decorated Marine Settles Suit With Defense Contractor

What totally theoretical possibilities do these two statements make it possible for a cynic to imagine?

Here is the Marine's statement:
"I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems-OASYS did not ultimately sell and does not intend to sell advanced thermal scopes to Pakistan"

"I am gratified to learn that BAE Systems-OASYS (not to be confused with "BAE Systems-PALM”) did not ultimately ("we were thinking about it but then the suit was filed") sell (lease?) and does not (currently) intend to sell advanced (regular grade are OK) thermal (non-thermal?) scopes (but we can sell other gear) to Pakistan (defined as "the government of Pakistan").

Here is BAE's position:
“BAE has made clear that the scopes arousing Mr. Meyer's concerns were never sold to Pakistan.”

BAE has made clear that the scopes arousing Mr. Meyer's concerns (specifically) were never sold to Pakistan" (defined as "the government of Pakistan?")

Why not a clearer and more categorical statement? What military equipment have they and other defense corporations sold to Pakistan? Doesn’t Pakistan appear to be rapidly transforming itself into an enemy?

RSS

Let me know what you think about this anti-corporate strategy

Healthcare Constitutional Issues Solved!

Decorated Marine Settles Suit With Defense Contractor: What are they Hiding?