• L. Awyer (unregistered) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    snoofle:
    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding. What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability. Though it will impact the free time of the PA who has to tape it back together...

    Fun fact: an unfair contract is also not legally binding.

  • (cs) in reply to monkeyPushButton
    monkeyPushButton:
    mace:
    There's no shortage of WTFs here, but I was really wondering what the point is of using a company typist who doesn't have the slightest clue what he's typing. I could kinda see a point to having your own knowledgeable IT guy keep an eye on what's going on, but if the guy doesn't know that "rm -rf /" is bad, why is he even there?
    It's part of the security requirement. No one that actually understands computers is allowed to type things in lest they use their knowledge to the detriment of the company. Kind of explains how the security guy got his job.

    Sooo.... what's stopping Gary from telling the guy to upload the company's databases to the web, if he doesn't know much about the command line? What they need is a computer expert observer, to go along with the technology have-not typist.

    I bet Gary wouldn't have complained as much if it was Irish Girl. Productivity would have been even lower! "Oooh, I guess we'll have to stay late! starts many CPU intensive processes Gosh it's getting warm in here."

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    snoofle:
    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding. What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability. Though it will impact the free time of the PA who has to tape it back together...

    Good luck enforcing a contract when you've prevented someone from having a copy of it - exactly how do you expect them to comply with something they have no record of?

  • EvilBob (unregistered) in reply to ThomasP

    TRWTF is you are using logic.

  • Jellineck (unregistered)

    He stayed there for a week?

    How badly did he need the work? There is always Home Depot. And failing that, cocks on the street corner don't suck themselves.

    CAPTCHA: dignissim - the complete lack of dignity that is required to accept having a typist while doing IT work.

  • (cs) in reply to Jellineck
    Jellineck:
    He stayed there for a week?

    How badly did he need the work? There is always Home Depot. And failing that, cocks on the street corner don't suck themselves.

    CAPTCHA: dignissim - the complete lack of dignity that is required to accept having a typist while doing IT work.

    He was a consultant, not an employee, and he was sent there by his consulting company.

  • Typist (unregistered) in reply to mace
    mace:
    There's no shortage of WTFs here, but I was really wondering what the point is of using a company typist who doesn't have the slightest clue what he's typing. I could kinda see a point to having your own knowledgeable IT guy keep an eye on what's going on, but if the guy doesn't know that "rm -rf /" is bad, why is he even there?
    Actually I'm very knowledgeable about IT.

    If "Gary" hadn't stopped me typing "rm -rf /", we could have sued his company for millions for sabotage according to legal document A73/42-0815 (that's the 146th one in the stack).

    Afterwards he thought I was an idiot, so I didn't have to worry about clever tricks for the rest of the week. If he'd try anything evil, he would've used simple tricks and I'd have caught him.

  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to L. Awyer
    L. Awyer:
    Anonymously Yours:
    snoofle:
    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding. What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability. Though it will impact the free time of the PA who has to tape it back together...
    Fun fact: an unfair contract is also not legally binding.
    Also true.

    Franz Kafka:
    Good luck enforcing a contract when you've prevented someone from having a copy of it - exactly how do you expect them to comply with something they have no record of?
    I was making reference to the cliche in movies where someone just rips a contract they signed into pieces and leaves it behind, saving the youth center or whatever from being bulldozed.
  • RBoy (unregistered) in reply to Kurt
    Kurt:
    Remy Porter:
    The week would have gone faster if Gary had been typing with boxing gloves on.

    Nice Homestar Runner reference.

    Orrrr.... it could be that it would have actually been quicker to type with boxing gloves on, and any references were only in your head.

  • RBoy (unregistered) in reply to Jellineck
    Jellineck:
    He stayed there for a week?

    How badly did he need the work? There is always Home Depot. And failing that, cocks on the street corner don't suck themselves.

    He was a consultant. You may need a designated comprehender, these articles don't comprehend themselves.

  • Jellineck (unregistered) in reply to ObiWayneKenobi
    ObiWayneKenobi:
    Jellineck:
    He stayed there for a week?

    How badly did he need the work? There is always Home Depot. And failing that, cocks on the street corner don't suck themselves.

    CAPTCHA: dignissim - the complete lack of dignity that is required to accept having a typist while doing IT work.

    He was a consultant, not an employee, and he was sent there by his consulting company.

    Even so, I don't think I would have been able to wait a week -hell, I'd be on the phone at lunch- to contact my employer to let them know there was no way I was going to work that contract.

  • (cs) in reply to RBoy
    RBoy:
    Orrrr.... it could be that it would have actually been quicker to type with boxing gloves on, and any references were only in your head.
    Or, it could be both. I can walk and chew gum at the same time. ;-)
  • JoeB (unregistered)

    This comment was dictated but not read.

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Jellineck
    Jellineck:
    He stayed there for a week?

    How badly did he need the work? There is always Home Depot. And failing that, cocks on the street corner don't suck themselves.

    CAPTCHA: dignissim - the complete lack of dignity that is required to accept having a typist while doing IT work.

    Maybe he didn't want to try and muscle in on your mom's business.

  • (cs)

    Is it really for there to be that much stupid in a company that can stay operational?

  • (cs) in reply to L. Awyer
    L. Awyer:
    Anonymously Yours:
    snoofle:
    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding. What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability. Though it will impact the free time of the PA who has to tape it back together...

    Fun fact: an unfair contract is also not legally binding.

    Try telling that to all the iPhone developers who want to use a non-ridiculous programming language, see how far that gets them.

  • (cs)

    Well, this explains the email he got before the trip explaining that he could find the security forms in the castle of uuggggggh.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Jellineck
    Jellineck:
    He stayed there for a week? How badly did he need the work? There is always Home Depot.

    Really, you'd quit an otherwise perfectly good job just because you had to do something stupid that you knew would be over with in one week? Your patience is extremely short. Are you telling me that at your present job, you have never, ever, had to do something you considered pointless or dumb?

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to Jay

    If the contracts weren't allowed outside of their office, what do they do if they claim someone has broken the contract? Are they allowed to bring a copy of the contract to the courthouse, or do they expect the judge to come to their office?

  • Bryan (unregistered) in reply to Mason Wheeler
    Mason Wheeler:
    L. Awyer:
    Anonymously Yours:
    snoofle:
    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding. What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability. Though it will impact the free time of the PA who has to tape it back together...

    Fun fact: an unfair contract is also not legally binding.

    Try telling that to all the iPhone developers who want to use a non-ridiculous programming language, see how far that gets them.

    Unfair is relative. In the case of the iPhone all developers are treated equally when it comes to the languages they can choose from and as the languages are not handicapped(even if you do not care for them) there isn't grounds to force Apple to open its platform.

    Besides thanks to the FOIA, Apple's apps contracts are public because the fedral gov't made a couple of apps.

  • Jay (unregistered) in reply to L. Awyer
    L. Awyer:
    Fun fact: an unfair contract is also not legally binding.

    Hmm, usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, but who would decide if a contract is "unfair"? I presume it would have to be a judge. Seems to me that such a law would make any contract meaningless. Like, I agree to buy a new car for $20,000. Six months later I refuse to make any further payments on the grounds that I don't think the car is worth that much so the contract is "unfair". At that point I guess a judge would have to decide what the car is "worth" and order me to pay that amount. But then, what's the point of signing the contract in the first place? What difference does it make what you sign if at any time either party can go to court, claim the contract was unfair, and the judge will then substitute his idea of what the contract should have said for what you actually agreed to? I would think that the whole point of a contract is that two parties come to an agreement betweent themselves what is fair, so the only role of the courts is to determine if, indeed, both parties have lived up to what they agreed to.

    Not to say that just because such a law would be dumb that that would mean there is no such law.

    In fairness, perhaps the original poster is giving a highly simplified version of what the law actually says. Or maybe it's just a dumb law.

  • (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    Heh. You should "View Source" on the article. It's like you read my mind.

    Ha! I like the "Easy Reader Version", myself. It would have saved me a lot of time.

  • Lego (unregistered)

    Having a typist isn't that unusual, it's just an anachronism. Back in the days of big iron, a programmer used to write software on coding sheets and hand them to keypunch operators (typists) to key the code onto a stack of punched cards.

    What we see here are two process optimizations. Both the coding sheets and the punched cards have been eliminated.

    Ah the miracles of modern technology!

    --Lego

  • David (unregistered)
    What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability.

    Nah, it's cool. I'll just eat it.

    In fairness, perhaps the original poster is giving a highly simplified version of what the law actually says. Or maybe it's just a dumb law.

    I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it requires that the contract be "unconscionable." I.e. the terms have to be so egregiously one sided that no reasonable person would have signed it. For example, an employment contract which stated that if you were terminated or left for any reason you would have to replay the company all the wages they ever paid you plus 1000% penalty. Now, that example is patently absurd, but I have no idea where the actual cutoff is for "unconscionable".

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    snoofle:
    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding. What you signed is irrelevant and ripping up a contract you already signed has no legal impact on its enforceability. Though it will impact the free time of the PA who has to tape it back together...
    Agreed, my signature is rather illegible. Occasionally, someone asks me to sign it again, but to make it more readable. I always have the same answer... "That wouldn't be my signature". A signature isn't your name spelled out in handwriting, it's a mark made by you signifying acceptance.

  • Brompot (unregistered) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    At any place I've ever worked, anyone short of a high-level exec can't sign anything on behalf of the company.

    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Probably because you signed the banks signature card and other legalese in a similar manner?

  • (cs) in reply to snoofle
    snoofle:
    Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    It's more advantageous to you to scribble-sign "Under Duress".

  • (cs) in reply to mace
    mace:
    There's no shortage of WTFs here, but I was really wondering what the point is of using a company typist who doesn't have the slightest clue what he's typing. I could kinda see a point to having your own knowledgeable IT guy keep an eye on what's going on, but if the guy doesn't know that "rm -rf /" is bad, why is he even there?

    See, now, you would be THINKING. Stop that immediately.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    Fun fact: Legally someone only needs to prove you signed a contract for it to be legally binding.

    You signing a contract may be a necessary condition, but certainly not a sufficient condition for a contract to be legally binding.

  • Franz Kafka (unregistered) in reply to Mason Wheeler
    Mason Wheeler:
    Try telling that to all the iPhone developers who want to use a non-ridiculous programming language, see how far that gets them.

    Sure, no problem. They aren't obligated to do anything in particular, and apple isn't obligated to accept apps written in flash. Sure, Apple are being dicks, but that isn't relevant here.

  • (cs) in reply to Brompot
    Brompot:
    Probably because you signed the banks signature card and other legalese in a similar manner?
    I've always found it unreasonable to use the signature as an unvarying mark of "me." It's unreasonable to expect that of people these days. With all the stupid plastic surfaces, awkward signing platforms, and stylus/tablet signature takers, my signature varies hugely from signing to signing.
  • Machtyn (unregistered) in reply to Josephus
    Josephus:
    Mike:
    Anonymous:
    Buddy:
    DSanka:
    After that he went out screaming loud and hitting his head against a wall??

    Water waste off thyme purple monkey dishwasher.

    Typo correction.
    Fixed that for you guys.

    Guys, don't forget the silent f! It looks perfect, good job everyone. Management bonuses for all!

    FTFY

    I can't believe you all missed that!

    /captcha contest: -tation: lac, ...?

  • wtf (unregistered) in reply to Brompot
    Brompot:
    snoofle:
    At any place I've ever worked, anyone short of a high-level exec can't sign anything on behalf of the company.

    On two occasions I've been handed a stack of legalese to sign. Since the actual signing is the only thing of importance, and nobody ever looks at the forms, I scribble-sign: D. Duck.

    I've even signed and endorsed personal checks like that and they still clear.

    Probably because you signed the banks signature card and other legalese in a similar manner?

    Any check will clear as long as there's a signature somewhere near the signature line. There's only an issue if you issue a fraud claim, asserting that you didn't sign the check.

  • Krenn (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Remy Porter:
    Heh. You should "View Source" on the article. It's like you read my mind.
    <!-- And then Gary killed everyone in the building. Kidding. -->

    Great stuff, you are fast becoming my favourite editor! You even seem to have a solid grasp on English which is unusual for TDWTF (just kidding Alex). Keep it up my good man.

    Just watch out for the unicorns. It's like somebody vomited a rainbow after a half dozen clicks.

  • Henning Makholm (unregistered) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    Hmm, usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, but who would decide if a contract is "unfair"? I presume it would have to be a judge. Seems to me that such a law would make any contract meaningless. Like, I agree to buy a new car for $20,000. Six months later I refuse to make any further payments on the grounds that I don't think the car is worth that much so the contract is "unfair". At that point I guess a judge would have to decide what the car is "worth" and order me to pay that amount. But then, what's the point of signing the contract in the first place? What difference does it make what you sign if at any time either party can go to court, claim the contract was unfair, and the judge will then substitute his idea of what the contract should have said for what you actually agreed to? I would think that the whole point of a contract is that two parties come to an agreement betweent themselves what is fair, so the only role of the courts is to determine if, indeed, both parties have lived up to what they agreed to.
    Not a lawyer either. But the way it works in most jurisdictions is that the parties do have a wide latitude to decide what they consider fair between them, so to be set aside as unfair, a contract term would have to be extremely and clearly unfair -- it is not enough that it differs from what the court would find ideally fair if it had to fashion a contract out of whole cloth. A court can usually refuse to hold one of the parties to contract terms only if they are so far out that nobody could reasonably consider them fair.

    One well-known example is the "consideration" rule in Anglo-American law, according to which a contract that says that A must give something to B without getting something in return, is automatically considered too unfair for B to enforce. (This is routinely worked around by contracts that specify that A gives something to B in exchange for a nominal sum, say one dollar).

    Other than that, a typical application of the principle would be a contract where B will only deal with A on B's standard terms which are not negotiable, and those standard terms puts A in a very bad position if something extremely unlikely happens. (For example, if you rent a hotel room for the night and the check-in slip you sign says in small print that if terrorists blow up the hotel while you stay there, you must pay a share of the cost of rebuilding it).

    In general contract terms are less likely to be found impermissibly unfair if they were negotiated explicitly between the parties, or if they were among major fact that anybody would think crucial to his decision whether to enter the contract, such as the price of a good or the amount of goods bargained for.

    Terms that are more at risk of being set aside are ones that are not explicitly negotiated, hidden in small print, of a kind that a typical party would not expect to find in that sort of contract, contrary to industry practice, and so forth.

  • Buzz Killington (unregistered)

    Not really a WTF if you're dealing with government contractors - pretty standard practice.

    I've seen this exact situation occur. I work for a government contractor and we had hired an outside consultant to upgrade a certain application. Because it was a one-time consulting effort for a 3-day upgrade, he did not go through the necessary mandatory security courses - just signed the standard NDA. Since only company issued computers may connect to the network he could not use his own, and was strictly forbidden from touching any of our computers.

    The upgrade went as follows (with consultant sitting directly next to me):

    Consultant: Ok login to the box Me: Ok Done. Consultant: Ok cd to /xyz/123 and execute something.sh Me: (Executing..) - Ok done.

    Repeat for 3 days. Frustrating for everyone - not just the consultant.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Bryan
    Bryan:
    Besides thanks to the FOIA, Apple's apps contracts are public because the fedral gov't made a couple of apps.
    But don't you think it's pretty out of order that they wouldn't even disclose the terms until it was legally forced out of them by that FOI request? I've read the whole document and it scares the hell out of me. I was wondering why no one had made a fuss about its ridiculous terms, until I realised that one of the clauses is that by agreeing to the terms, you cannot talk to anybody about the terms. WTF is that about? Scary stuff in my opinion.
  • (cs) in reply to Henning Makholm

    More IANALBut:

    I don't know much about US law, but in the UK specific provisions of a contract can be deemed unfair without the whole contract being set aside.

    It's unusual for these kind of things to be tested in court, but it's not unusual for people to add grossly unfair and/or illegal conditions to contracts. Generally, they either have no idea of the law or are just trying it on, but either way the cases never reach court if someone stands up to them. If someone's just trying it on, then they won't want a legal ruling against them - they'll back down from one case so they can beat others with the same fake stick.

    The most common occurrences of this kind of thing are fairly minor - things like the sign in a theatre cloakroom saying 'we do not accept liability for loss or damage of any items deposited'. That's a contractual term you agree with when you leave items there, but it's not valid because that's not a responsibility a cloakroom is permitted to disclaim.

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Bryan:
    Besides thanks to the FOIA, Apple's apps contracts are public because the fedral gov't made a couple of apps.
    But don't you think it's pretty out of order that they wouldn't even disclose the terms until it was legally forced out of them by that FOI request? I've read the whole document and it scares the hell out of me. I was wondering why no one had made a fuss about its ridiculous terms, until I realised that one of the clauses is that by agreeing to the terms, you cannot talk to anybody about the terms. WTF is that about? Scary stuff in my opinion.
    People sign the contract because there is money to be made. In fact, they believe the money to be made is worth more than the onerous clauses in the contract. If they didn't, they wouldn't sign it.
  • (cs)

    The "Security Czar" clearly has problems with the concept of security. I bet he locks his car with the windows rolled down.

  • (cs) in reply to Jay
    Jay:
    L. Awyer:
    Fun fact: an unfair contract is also not legally binding.

    Hmm, usual "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, but who would decide if a contract is "unfair"? I presume it would have to be a judge. Seems to me that such a law would make any contract meaningless. Like, I agree to buy a new car for $20,000. Six months later I refuse to make any further payments on the grounds that I don't think the car is worth that much so the contract is "unfair". At that point I guess a judge would have to decide what the car is "worth" and order me to pay that amount. But then, what's the point of signing the contract in the first place? What difference does it make what you sign if at any time either party can go to court, claim the contract was unfair, and the judge will then substitute his idea of what the contract should have said for what you actually agreed to? I would think that the whole point of a contract is that two parties come to an agreement betweent themselves what is fair, so the only role of the courts is to determine if, indeed, both parties have lived up to what they agreed to.

    Is this a joke? The reason people don't break contracts all the time is because going to court for the Judge's ruling costs more than most contracts are worth.

  • Jeremy Friesner (unregistered) in reply to Alan Onn

    Spent several days patiently explaining "no, not that key, that one" and "no, a greater-than sign", but the remark "rm -rf /" was perfectly understood without further explanation? Yeh right.

    Well, of course it wasn't understood properly. Chances of that command being entered as spoken were minimal. But that never stops a person from trying...

  • (cs) in reply to mace
    mace:
    There's no shortage of WTFs here, but I was really wondering what the point is of using a company typist who doesn't have the slightest clue what he's typing. I could kinda see a point to having your own knowledgeable IT guy keep an eye on what's going on, but if the guy doesn't know that "rm -rf /" is bad, why is he even there?

    It's more secure that way. You don't want the typist to have capacity for independent thought, or else what you dictate may not be what they type.

  • Jeremy Friesner (unregistered) in reply to mace

    if the guy doesn't know that "rm -rf /" is bad, why is he even there?

    Answer: To make the security guy feel like he is doing something useful.

  • IT Girl (unregistered) in reply to Mike
    Mike:
    Anonymous:
    Buddy:
    DSanka:
    After that he went out screaming loud and hitting his head against a wall??

    Water waist off thyme.

    Typo correction.
    Fixed that for you guys.

    Guys, don't forget the silent f! It looks perfect, good job everyone. Management bonuses for all!

    "No, you mispelled it. No, there isn't a spellchecker."

  • Spudd86 (unregistered) in reply to Mason Wheeler

    It's not so much a contract thing with iPhone store since Apple is under no obligation to distribute anything that you make so if you breach the terms and Apple finds out your App simply vanishes from the store, no need for a legally binding contract.

  • Spudd86 (unregistered) in reply to My Name Is Missing

    Source IP is not a secure method of authentication...

  • (cs) in reply to Markp
    Markp:
    Brompot:
    Probably because you signed the banks signature card and other legalese in a similar manner?
    I've always found it unreasonable to use the signature as an unvarying mark of "me." It's unreasonable to expect that of people these days. With all the stupid plastic surfaces, awkward signing platforms, and stylus/tablet signature takers, my signature varies hugely from signing to signing.

    I haven't written anything in cursive (other than my signature) for about 20 years. My signature hung on for a while, but eventually even it started slipping away. Over a period of about a year, my signature went from legible to total scribble. Only one person - a bank teller - has ever asked about it. Furthermore, he said something like this: "Your signature doesn't seem to match the one we have on file. Can I see your id?"

    Fortunately, it matched my check. :)

  • (cs)

    <insert mandatory dingy/dinghy boat-related joke here>

  • Anon (unregistered) in reply to Jeremy Friesner
    Jeremy Friesner:
    > Spent several days patiently explaining "no, not that key, that one" and "no, a greater-than sign", but the remark "rm -rf /" was perfectly understood without further explanation? Yeh right.

    Well, of course it wasn't understood properly. Chances of that command being entered as spoken were minimal. But that never stops a person from trying...

    A better solution would be for the contractor to use their own laptop computer (maybe attached to a projector) and type the commands in notepad and ask the typist to retype exactly what they type on the companies terminal. That would have to be more productive that trying to dictate.

Leave a comment on “Secured Typing”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article