• martiert (unregistered)

    Would be so great if he didn't stop the typist in time. Especially if the computer had sensitive data. That would have been priceless!

  • Anon (unregistered) 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.

    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.

    I am also not a lawyer, others have pointed out various reasons why a contract might be considered unfair, but I'd add that I believe a contract can be ruled unenforceable if it can be demonstrated that one of the parties had been mislead and didn't fully understand the terms of the contract.

  • Anonymously Yours (unregistered) in reply to davedavenotdavemaybedave
    Markp:
    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.
    I agree, but let's not get into semantics over a word chosen solely for brevity. If anyone's curious, a contract has to hit the following criteria to be considered valid and binding: the terms must be understood by all parties prior to signing, the contract must be signed without illegal coercion, the signatures must be dated by the signing parties, both sides must be equally compensated, and the terms must be legal at the time of signing. I believe that is all of them, but I swear I am missing one. There are other quirks of contract law, but I'm just talking about the contract itself.

    Before anyone decides to throw a shitfit, keep in mind that I'm just reciting contract law, not providing the logistics of enforcing it. Arguments about contracts must be taken to court and, typically, whichever lawyer is most convincing without offending the judge's intelligence wins. Contracts don't magically find themselves legally invalidated.

    davedavenotdavemaybedave:
    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.
    The same is true in the US.
  • Bob (unregistered)

    This is the best argument in favor of concealed-carry I've read yet...

  • Ack (unregistered) in reply to Anonymously Yours
    Anonymously Yours:
    davedavenotdavemaybedave:
    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.
    The same is true in the US.

    Some that I've seen:

    Stipulating that the contract cannot and will not be contested - just plain illegal.

    Imposing some kind of punitive penalty for breaking any part of a contract - that's for the courts to decide.

    Imposing broad non-competitive clauses - can be proven unconstitutional if it causes duress upon the signer (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

    Any deviation from the standard two weeks notice - common but unenforceable, really it comes down to whether the signer wants to retain good relations with the company.

  • Ditto (unregistered)

    Wow, security there is pretty lax .. here, we're not allowed monitors because they display sensitive data .. :o

    Captcha: Sino ... plural for sinus? shrug

  • BentFranklin (unregistered)

    Great punch line.

  • mike (unregistered)

    eff eye arr ess tea space pea oh eff no you dumbass backspace duh ess tea

  • Sean (unregistered) in reply to Alan Onn
    Alan Onn:
    I call shenanigans. 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.

    It just says that "Louis dutifly started tapping away at his instruction". Louis probably didn't understand any of what he was typing, and obviously he just typed whatever he thought he heard. Hence, the fact that Gary was constantly correcting him, as opposed to answering questions.

    It fits the story.

  • L. Awyer (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.

    How far will it get them? Has it been contested in court yet? Are terms of use of a piece of software a contract?

  • enim (unregistered)

    dutifly <> dutifully

    "No, there isn't a spellchecker."

    QFT

  • Chopper (unregistered) 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.

    This is why on all of my plastic money it reads "SEE ID" and when paying with my plastic money the first thing I do is present my ID. Signature be damned!

  • Jesse (unregistered) in reply to Chopper
    Chopper:
    This is why on all of my plastic money it reads "SEE ID" and when paying with my plastic money the first thing I do is present my ID. Signature be damned!
    FTR, a card with "SEE ID" in the signature panel is not valid (unless it's actually your signature because your name is See Id). Merchants who see that are supposed to make you sign it in front of them, then check the new signature against your ID.

    I hate it when places demand ID when I pay with plastic - it's a waste of my time, it doesn't actually reduce the fraud risk for me or the merchant, and it's explicitly forbidden by Visa and MasterCard's standard merchant agreements. Many merchants do it anyway, allegedly to prevent fraud, but I have to suspect it's also to discourage people from using plastic (so the merchant doesn't have to pay fees). Luckily, it's easy to report merchant violations: for Visa you can call 800-VISA-911, for MasterCard there's a form on mastercard.com.

    (captcha: feugiat ... what you get when you crash a French car into an Italian car)

  • Dan (unregistered) in reply to yonizaf
    yonizaf:
    Buddy:
    Cute story. I guess if he's working remotely then technically he isn't "touching" the keyboard!
    Not. If he's connected through VPN then his keyboard is 'connected to their network', and he shouldn't be allowed to touch it.

    Maybe they'll send a typist with him.

    Actually the VPN goes to a monitor that the typist reads and then transcribes to the "real keyboard connected to their network." This will explain Gary's extreme lag.

  • Spike (unregistered)

    I call shenanigans, there is no way that last line is true.

  • keith (unregistered)

    My co-worker and I at an enterprise-y app shop had a euphemism for problem client site visits: "filet mignon tonight". Expense them hard.

  • Jeremy (unregistered)
    "It's against company policy for a non-employee to touch a keyboard connected to our network," Norman growled.
    <sarcasm> I don't know about any of you, but my keyboard is not connected to the network. My keyboard is connected to my computer! </sarcasm>
  • Worf (unregistered) in reply to Bryan
    Bryan:
    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.

    IANAL, but, actually, unfair contracts are legally binding. A court looks very dimly at being used to rewrite contracts that have been agreed to by both parties. This is especially so if both parties entering into negotiations are fully prepared (like Apple and iPhone developers).

    However, courts have struck out blatantly unfair terms (e.g., non-competes if they don't have a definite time and definite location and area and are "reasonable"), as well as contracts that have been entered into during times of duress (e.g., layoff settlements) or where coercion might be at play (e.g., employment contracts where employee cannot seek legal advice before signing). Or if a mistake has been clearly made.

    But if you do something stupid like sell me a normal car (not toy or model) for $1, and it's clear no mistake is made, you can be forced to uphold your end of the bargain. That's why numbers are often spelled out - it's easy to mistype $1000 when the actual amount is $2000, for example. So that's why its says "the amount of two thousand dollars ($2000)". If someone mistypes and it says "the amount of two thousand dollars ($1000)", the intent is quite clear.

    In the iPhone case, no devs can come whining to the courts because both entered into a binding legal agreement that no matter how unfair, either party had free will into not participating in the deal. Every developer for the iPhone has the option to not develop for it. Especiallly since you don't have to develop for it.

  • (cs) in reply to yonizaf
    yonizaf:
    Buddy:
    Cute story. I guess if he's working remotely then technically he isn't "touching" the keyboard!
    Not. If he's connected through VPN then his keyboard is 'connected to their network', and he shouldn't be allowed to touch it.

    Maybe they'll send a typist with him.

    Maybe he should email them to have them fax him a typist. A slim one, of course. Must fit on the fax's flatbed, after all.

  • deejayvee (unregistered)
    not a Neal Stephenson book.

    I'd love it if work required me to read a Neal Stephenson book.

  • doh (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.

    Good one.

    In the AF I worked at a secure site. Cards w/ your picture hanging around your necks. The CO replaced his pic w/ one of Mickey Mouse, and strolled around to see if Security would call him out.

    They didn't. The CO was not pleased.

    A couple of months later we got a squadron mascot...a goat. Guess who had to clean up after it.

  • Secret Codeword (unregistered) in reply to My Name Is Missing
    My Name Is Missing:
    Our consulting firm once worked on a project for SABRE. We had our development server in their local office, accessed via a VPN, an electronic key generator, and could only access it from a specific IP in our office. Lo and behold when EDS took over the security we were told we could only access the server if someone there typed in the commands and read the result back over the phone. The IT support person got so tired of us they just gave us their credentials. Later on we just put in a backdoor in the application so we could investigate problems remotely through the application itself (only accessible from our IP of course).

    If they'd left us alone none of this would have ever been necessary.

    Exactly. Onerous requirements invite workarounds (even not so onerous...sticky notes on the console come to mind).

    Back when the capability was becoming popular, security systems were often configured to request new passwords every month. I had no real problem with it, I had several password systems that helped me remember...but most people don't/won't. So...stickies.

    I started working w/ Unix & discovered that, if enabled, the default for a reset was three months. Right then & there I realized that a more relaxed reset period could be more secure than a monthly reset.

  • hans (unregistered)

    Been there, seen that, done that. Except for the NDA's! Swiss Bank's!

  • (cs) in reply to Anonymously Yours

    I'm sure that the hour (rounding up) spent taping together a torn contract is billable.

  • oheso (unregistered) in reply to deejayvee
    deejayvee:
    I'd love it if work required me to read a Neal Stephenson book.

    ... as long as it's not Anathem.

  • Brendan (unregistered) in reply to yonizaf
    yonizaf:
    If he's connected through VPN then his keyboard is 'connected to their network', and he shouldn't be allowed to touch it.

    If their network is connected to the internet, then none of use are allowed to

  • Donald (unregistered) in reply to yonizaf
    yonizaf:
    Buddy:
    Cute story. I guess if he's working remotely then technically he isn't "touching" the keyboard!
    Not. If he's connected through VPN then his keyboard is 'connected to their network', and he shouldn't be allowed to touch it.

    Maybe they'll send a typist with him.

    My computer is connected to my network, my network is connected to the Internet. Your network is connected to the internet, your computer to your network and your keyboard to your computer.

    Therefore your keyboard is connected to my network. All your keyboards are connected to my network!!!

    Everyone: STOP TOUCHING YOUR KEYBOARDS! I will soon send each of you a typist.

  • The 2-Belo (unregistered)

    "Dear King Haakon: I'm not dictating. What?"

  • (cs)

    That sounds like very ancient security rules mixed up government/ military contractor security.

    Clearly the typist rule stems from the era when Mainframes were King - in other words: when IT security equaled physical security thus the security czar in question is in charge of all physical security. Clearly their security rules have not kept up with the times.

    Places I worked had the policy that I as a normal (production) employee had no permission to sign anything presented to customers except my work reports. One of my former employers in fact had a clause just like this included in their standard contracts putting the costs of visits aborted for such reasons squarely on the customer.

  • (cs)

    With that level of security theater, I'm betting that they use Windows 98 and the administrator's password is "admin" on all computers.

    Pro-tip: Heavy security is inconvenient, but that does not make inconvenience equal security.

  • Anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Arancaytar
    Arancaytar:
    With that level of security theater, I'm betting that they use Windows 98 and the administrator's password is "admin" on all computers.

    Pro-tip: Heavy security is inconvenient, but that does not make inconvenience equal security.

    You must be joking, we'd never use such an insecure password. Nope, we use the infinitely more secure "adm1n". Infallible.

  • yername (unregistered) in reply to yonizaf
    yonizaf:
    Buddy:
    Cute story. I guess if he's working remotely then technically he isn't "touching" the keyboard!
    Not. If he's connected through VPN then his keyboard is 'connected to their network', and he shouldn't be allowed to touch it.

    Maybe they'll send a typist with him.

    I think the stack of papers he signed took care of that. They probably temporarily transferred the ownership of said network to Gary's company in cases involving a VPN.

  • Gary (unregistered) in reply to cklam
    cklam:
    That sounds like very ancient security rules mixed up government/ military contractor security.

    Clearly the typist rule stems from the era when Mainframes were King - in other words: when IT security equaled physical security thus the security czar in question is in charge of all physical security. Clearly their security rules have not kept up with the times.

    lol, were you there? =)

    Btw, Nice Job with the article Remy. Got my whole office laughing! Now everyone can share in our WTF moment :P

  • Rayven (unregistered)

    I can understand his agony. I've been there. In my first job I was the only software developer - the company at that time hardly knew what a computer was for let alone what they wanted me to program it to do! They had roped me into playing a friendly cricket game with some of the staff one lunchtime, and try as I might, I couldn't get out of it; and whilst trying to catch a ball, I badly dislocated 2 fingers one one hand and broke another on the the other hand. Rather than giving me some time off to recover (I wish) they assigned a secretary from the typing pool to me to type the code whilst I dictated it. By the end of the week I was starting to think that breaking all of my fingers might have been less painful.

  • Gus (unregistered) in reply to Remy Porter

    +1 for making me go back and view source on old articles to find more goodies

  • John D Lawyer (unregistered) in reply to Jay

    It's a 'reasonableness' test for whether a contract term is unfair, for example you cannot be sued for breach of contract if the contract requires you to do something illegal.

    To take your example, if the 'normal' price for that car were £5,000 then quite possibly the judge would rewrite the terms in your example, but if £20,000 is reasonable then the contract is fair. On the other hand if the contract required you to clean it daily in order for any warranty to have validity, then that would probably be unfair too.

    In the UK at least the 'no unfair clauses' clause only applies to individuals, businesses are assumed to be grown up enough to only agree to things.

    Chances are that in the US there is less protection, as you generally allow a higher degree of caveat emptor, but I have NFI as I'm not a lawyer there.

  • (cs) in reply to Typist
    Typist:
    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.

    It doesn't matter how competent you are. A one word command can trigger anything that a cracker can conceive.

    The issue is trust: You either trust the vendor to do what they promised or you don't. And if you don't, you have absolutely no business giving them control of your system; even second hand.

    Clearly, to the contrary, you trusted the vendor. So having someone else type in the commands as an intermediary is pure nonsense: A waste of time. You could do as much useful by logging what the vendor typed--and know just as much about what they did to your system.

  • (cs) in reply to Someone who can't be bothered to login from work
    Someone who can't be bothered to login from work:
    ContraCorners:
    Henning Makholm:
    If signing a stack of legal documents that you're not allowed to bring a copy of with you home is not TRWTF, it should be. Who can know for sure, afterwards, which strange liabilities Gary has committed his company (or himself!) to? His company will be unable to act in any manner to protect their own interests, or even to attempt to keep whatever promises Gary may have unwittingly made.
    Absolutely! In what bizarro-world is an install consultant even allowed to sign legal documents without at least consulting his employer's attorneys?

    Pass. But in the UK I think it used to be the case that only the Company Secretary could actually enter in to legal contracts on behalf of the company.

    Nah. Board-level directors can too- or anyone specifically authorised by them.

  • (cs) in reply to David
    David:
    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".

    It will, of course, depend on your location. In the UK, there's something called the Unfair Contract Clauses Act, which means that a clause that is "materially unfair" (IIRC) can be overturned (i.e. ignored)- but it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole contract can be overturned. There's usually a clause about "severability" in contracts, which means that if any clause is overturned, the remainder of the contract should be interpreted as though that clause had been omitted. Only where a clause is central to the contract can it cause the entire contract to be voided.

  • (cs) in reply to oheso
    oheso:
    deejayvee:
    I'd love it if work required me to read a Neal Stephenson book.

    ... as long as it's not Anathem.

    I rather liked Anathem. Press-ups for the brain.

  • God (unregistered)

    I have created the world and I can tell you this story is true

  • Philipp (unregistered)

    OK I would like you to type the comment into that field. So, how do I begin. Yes, I am currently working at a SynTechHyperLtd, no wait we may not say that, confidentially and all, ok write just a company. Ok where was I oh yes I am currently working at a company which also requires me to have a typist writing everything for me.

  • Charleh (unregistered)

    The scroll the scroll, the buttons the buttons, scrolling so good like butter on a muffin!

  • tjones (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?

    I googled "rm -rf /" and my phone rang. Caller ID said "Google". I picked up and someone said "Cut it out!"

  • stevewrd (unregistered) in reply to Anonymous
    Anonymous:
    Arancaytar:
    With that level of security theater, I'm betting that they use Windows 98 and the administrator's password is "admin" on all computers.

    Pro-tip: Heavy security is inconvenient, but that does not make inconvenience equal security.

    You must be joking, we'd never use such an insecure password. Nope, we use the infinitely more secure "adm1n". Infallible.

    We us Pa55w0rd in order to meet password complexity rules.

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Severity One
    Severity One:
    This sounds like a place that could do with outsourcing.

    The management, for starters.

    Most places should have their management outsourced.

  • chenz (unregistered)

    This reminds me of "Mordac — Preventer of Information Technology".

    CAPTCHA: appellatio (This reminds me of something else..)

  • (cs) in reply to jmucchiello
    jmucchiello:
    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.

    And you've always read every line of the EULA when installing software? Fortunately for most of us, they're not enforceable either.

    Or how about putting something on the inside of a sealed box stating that the customer automatically accepts the software becaue they have opened the packaging?

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

    Walter waist hoff 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!

    You misspelled Walter's name and forgot the H as well.

  • Mark J. (unregistered) in reply to Coyne

    Coyne, your comment about trusting the vendor is well taken. However, you're also using logic - always dangerous!

Leave a comment on “Secured Typing”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article