Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Login Code of Conduct Found Not Binding 276

Posted by Hemos
from the click-EULAs-ftl dept.
SurturZ writes "The Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales, Australia, has ordered a company to reinstate an employee who downloaded porn onto a work laptop, even though it was in contravention of his workplace's code of conduct. From the article: the IRC said there was an 'air of automatically' about the annual signing off of employees on NCR's code of conduct, 'a degree of mechanical, unthinking routine in employees making a commitment to abide by the code.'" So, I think most of us can agree, porn at work == bad, but recognition that Click EULAs/other agreements are not binding is probably good. The question is — what replaces them?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Login Code of Conduct Found Not Binding

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:11AM (#16734629) Journal
    I've violate TOS & EULAs like Michael Jackson at a daycare center.

    I'm not too worried about the click through TOS/EULA being used against me in a court of law. For you see, I was installing Warcraft and then the phone rang and I got up to answer it. Meanwhile my cat walked across the keyboard that was unattended and when I came back, the game was ready to play.

    What's that? You have multiple screens that prompt me everytime a new patch comes out? Well, I guess I should remind you that my keyboard is laced with catnip & I have many cats which are very active animals.

    Either way, I certainly never read or understood the TOS/EULA so how could I violate it?
    • by CDPatten (907182)
      I'm not sure TOS/EULA was ever really binding. Couldn't someone just claim ignorance. "I didn't install it... It was on here when I got it." Prove that it wasn't.

      I think for it to be effective it would have to prompt the user every time the application was used, and then comes the question, is it legally binding without being notarized? Without witnesses? Could someone who is illiterate not use the software because they can't read the terms? How would they know? Does the software need to read terms
      • by Infonaut (96956)

        I'm not sure TOS/EULA was ever really binding. Couldn't someone just claim ignorance.

        In contracts of this type, the law isn't concerned about you per se. The test is whether a reasonable person in your circumstance would have seen and understood the terms of the contract.

      • by nomadic (141991)
        Well I don't really know much about Australian law, but in the US some TOS/EULAs have been found valid. Yes, you could make an argument that you didn't see/hear the contract beforehand, but you'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge or jury of that. And honestly, do you really want to commit perjury over something like this?
    • by Creepy Crawler (680178) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:38AM (#16734947)
      Its easier than that. I did this in small claims..

      I bought a game, which didnt work at all. It was Unreal 2 (yeah, quit yer hissing). Damn thing failed on playing, and the patches did the same.

      Wal-mart refused to take it back, because it's "Software".

      I took Wal-mart to small claims for refusing to take back defective software. Total was 150$ (50 for game and the rest for fees and pain).

      After Terry Law (manager of this wal-mart) showed up, they said I was returning it so I would get a free game. I demonstrated with a laptop that it just didnt run. And I also showed the judge thepiratebay.com and said "if I wanted it free, I wouldnt have even went to wal-mart.".

      I gave the game back in the judges presence, and got a check in 150$
      • Niiiice. I've always hated that crap about not taking returns on software. As you rightly point out, there are easier ways to get free games than waiting for an hour in the checkout line at Wally World.

        My own anecdote --- I put the last copy of Fear Effect: Retro Helix on layaway at the local Mall-Wart. A month later I picked it up, took it home and noticed the tabs had broken off and scuffed up the discs something terrible. I took it back to electronics and they said I probably scuffed it up myself, and
        • by miyako (632510)
          I know it wasn't really the point of your post, but I've noticed lately a lot of games and movies Ive bought have had problems with the little tab things that keep the disk in place breaking and the disk getting scratched. I haven't generally had any trouble getting an exchange when this happens, but it is really quite annoying. I wonder if manufacturers are using a new sort of plastic or something- because I don't really remember that happening at all in the last 5-6 years except in the last 6 months or
        • Along with that, it's only about 30$ or so to file a small claim judgement.

          You really dont need a lawyer, or good law experience for that matter. All you really need is hard evidence and a witness if they apply.

          Having a decent judge also matters too. There's some real crap ones.
      • by gad_zuki! (70830)
        Thats odd. Ive never seen a retailer not take a return and give a new copy to the buyer, assuming that the media is bad. Some stores will even give you store credit if you claim that you bought the game but your computer doesnt meet the minimum requirements to run it, although you'll have to really tear into customer service to get this sometimes.

        Then again we are talking about Walmart...
        • Well, the discs were physically OK, and my laptop is faster than "required" or whatever the minimum is.

          The game would crash the computer at a black screen, then show "Would you like to send a report to MS...."

          It was rather a quick judgment. The game didnt work, and they wouldnt refund. I had my paperwork, and I won.
      • by mgblst (80109)
        Good stuff. I have heard some people having quite a problem in small claims court. You should write up your experience, and why you think it went so well, could really help a lot of people out.

        More people should do this, and you can help this happen.

    • by k12linux (627320)
      This wasn't talking about a click-through or sign-on Eula. It was talking about an agreement the employee had to review and sign as part of their terms of employement. They had to re-sign in anually.

      The guy "downloaded and stored" the images over the course of several years which means he had to have signed the agreement more than once. His argument seems to be that he was singled out and that others in higher positions have done the same thing and even given him some of the images he had saved. (Totally
    • by ajs318 (655362)
      I can attest to that. The cutest kitten in the world (i.e. mine! Every kitten is the cutest kitten in the world, just like every little girl is a princess, and if you don't agree then you have obviously never experienced the love of either), a ginger tabby DSH named Chico, has a propensity for helping me with my computer. However, his idea of helping me is to stand on the keyboard, pressing various keys, and sometimes to push my mouse away into the depths around my computer desk.

      Beside which, if I am
  • what replaces them (Score:3, Insightful)

    by l3v1 (787564) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:12AM (#16734637)
    what replaces them

    common sense ? reason ?
     
    • by Fozzyuw (950608)
      The question is -- what replaces them?

      Download Free Porn - Click Here To Read How!

    • by faloi (738831)
      common sense ? reason ?

      Next you'll be advocating personal responsibility and consequences for your actions. Let the insanity stop now!
    • by springbox (853816)
      Wouldn't it be better to have employees sign a contract regarding conduct similar to how some already sign NDAs.
  • I can see why it would be bad to look at porn, rather than doing work, and in places where you might have customers walking by. But why would watching porn under a break be worse than reading Slashdot?
    • by giorgiofr (887762)
      Because you explicitely agreed not do watch it when you signed your contract, and possibly every time you've logged into the system.
      That enough for ya?
      • by TheCarp (96830) *
        No not good enough for me.

        he question wasn't "why shouldn't I do it" the question was "why is it bad in the first place"

        This isn't a question of who has the right to put what restrictions on who...it was a question of why the restriction exists in the first place. I happen to wonder myself.

        It seems, like many things, a bad attempt to fix a problem. Yes, its a problem if people, even on break, are viewing porn in the office. There are indeed issues in the workplace with it (why there are issues is another pr
        • In the US, swimsuit calendars on the inside of personal storage lockers have been grounds for sexual harassment suits. In light of that, someone walking behind you while you're 'porning' during break would certainly count also.
          Remember these rules aren't there to be prudish, they're there to save the companies ass when someone takes them to court.
    • by qwijibo (101731)
      If a coworker sees it and is offended, it can be considered sexual harassment, creating a hostile working environment, or any number of other whiny things that HR doesn't want to deal with.
      • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
        If a coworker sees it and is offended, it can be considered sexual harassment, creating a hostile working environment, or any number of other whiny things that HR doesn't want to deal with.

        This was on a laptop. Who says that the pr0n was being viewed during working hours or even in the office? The laptop should be re-imaged before being given to another employee anyway.

        -b.

    • Two -okay- three words: Sex Harassment Lawsuit.

      It could too easily be construed as proof of a "Hostile Environment" if a female employee walks in on some slob surfing pr0n.

      Personally, forget the click-through stuff... what about the piece of paper that the guy had to sign before he even got his logon? I mean, WTF - any sysadmin/IT dep't with working brain cells is going to have an AUP on paper which all new employees have to sign, right? That would make it a binding contract right off...

      /P

  • by nblender (741424) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:15AM (#16734673)
    Porn at work == bad? Will the erosion of job satisfaction never end? What next? No more booze in the server room?
    • by slim (1652)
      Not like me to link to YouTube in a /. post, but in this case it's irresistable:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DoClztvNHw [youtube.com]
  • Replaces ToS and Eulas? How about at-start contracts with well-worded phrases. A paraphrase at the top would do wonders.

    In my state, Indiana, USA, we are an on-hire (well, whatever that phrase that means they can lay off for no reason). However, if anybody demands us to sign a contract later on in our job (as in after hiring, we can quit and get unemployment). A former employer did that very thing, and I quit and filed a petition with the contract I took home.
    • You are thinking of "at will employment".
    • by Pofy (471469)
      >Replaces ToS and Eulas? How about at-start contracts with well-worded phrases. A paraphrase
      >at the top would do wonders.

      Why replace them at all? Why would there be such an important need for them to start with? Appearantly most every other bussiness type seems to manage quite good without any at all.
  • Not hard (Score:2, Insightful)

    by reed (19777)
    What replaces them? I dunno, when I started my job I was given the employee handbook, and time to read it. It's not long. It just says "company equipment is provided to you to do your work, and within the discression of your supervisors should only be used for such." Then it has a short paragraph about sexual harassment policy. Not a big long list of verbotens, just an understanding that (a) the primary purpose of company owned equipment is work, not personal use (though some personal use is of course
  • by Todd Knarr (15451) * on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:20AM (#16734725) Homepage

    It sounds like the problem wasn't just the "oh, another form to sign" nature of the code of conduct, it was the company's behavior. Remember, the IRC said outright that, despite the company claiming a "no tolerance" policy, they didn't act like one existed up until they had to terminate this guy. Likely they, like most companies, didn't actually police the code of conduct, they just let employees do anything at all until the company finally stumbled on something bad, and then and only then did the code of conduct come up. The solution the court's looking for, I suspect, is for the company to actually routinely police the code of conduct, regularly look at employees to see whether they're following it, warn those that're starting to push the borderline and generally act like the company cares about the code of conduct before it gets to a termination situation.

    • While this may be a good idea, a company has to be VERY careful in doing this. We are not talking about protecting trademarks, where if you don't enforce it you lose it. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act is a pr0n addicted worker's best friend in this situation. You cannot actively monitor an employee's electronic communications (e-mail, web surfing) unless the employees are fully aware that they are being monitored and have agreed to this by signing an agreement or if the company suspects that t
  • ...and should not be from a legal perspective. For example, there is no click-through agreement I must re-affirm each and every time I use my credit card, yet I am still bound by its terms of use agreement. That agreement also states that the agreement may be amended with fair warning, and continuing use of the credit card is a tacit agreement to any future updates to the terms of use.

    Just because I don't automatically and unthinkingly click past some arbitrary GUI element does not free me from the respon
  • I have sit-downs with my direct reports, as they do for their own. We print out our position descriptions, which include pointers to our rules and regs. and we make sure to discuss the fact that they are responsible for knowing the regs. and abiding by them. They sign this in person. Our Compliance Office also has automated systems that require staff to periodically review training sessions that cover important topics and these are signed electronically. You're pretty much screwed if you do what this gu
    • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
      They sign this in person. Our Compliance Office also has automated systems that require staff to periodically review training sessions that cover important topics and these are signed electronically. You're pretty much screwed if you do what this guy did. We have good lawyers and much better systems in the last 10 years...

      As long as the pr0n watching is done with the office door closed and the employee is pulling his weight in the company, why should it matter to the management? The money spent for "bett

      • by csoto (220540)
        It matters because it's against our code of conduct. As is berating or yelling at others. Simple things like this. It's about mutual respect. And, it's about misuse of public property. But most of the offense WRT this is about running your own business or somesuch on work time and equipment.

        And nobody said a word about spying. It's an honor code. If you're caught (people are caught even without spyware- behavior is what gets you noticed), you're dealt with. There's little active monitoring of online
        • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
          It matters because it's against our code of conduct.

          The rules are the rules because they are the rules. Sounds like a tautological argument if I've ever heard one. Unless someone was actually aggrieved by the "offense", why bother firing the employee. Just give him a stiff talking to.

          The typical /. aversion to management is disappointing. Management is important, particularly in IT. Without it, nothing gets done, nobody gets paid.

          Nothing wrong with management. I just come from a small company mind

  • When this employee goes back to his job and is looking at his "amusements" and a co-worker walks by and is offended... What happens then? Presumably he gets fired (again). Is there legal recourse for the offended employee to sue the IRC under the laws of Australia for allowing this conduct to continue?
    • by TheCarp (96830) *
      It seems to me like the simplest fix is to give people headphones and design the work space so that a person walking by can't see everyones screen casually.

      Problem solved. No need to lose employees (which studies show it costs about 150% of the positions annual salary on average to replace someone). Nobody needs to get offended either. Hows that for thinking outside the box?

      -Steve
      • by ajs318 (655362)
        Yeah, but those in authority like being able to wield big sticks. Power means nothing if you don't get to remind your inferiors that they are your inferiors.

        The UK is switching over to all-digital TV starting from 2008. What's crazy is that stores are still selling analogue-only TV sets -- and in all probability, still will be after the switchover. What's even crazier is that they haven't built in the facility to require a viewing card for some or all programmes.

        If you needed a viewing card in your T
  • Memories (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:27AM (#16734821) Homepage Journal
    Slightly OT, but does anyone else from the BBS scene in the 1980s remember the login screens nervous sysops used to use, with disclaimers like "no police are allowed on this board, if you login that means you're not allowed to nark on me k?" Those were funny. I remember reading an interview with a cop who as a hobby collected printouts of those screens encountered during the course of investigations.
    • by joe 155 (937621)
      I think your post was largely on topic, those messages seem obviously stupid and we would expect them to have no legal force, but why do we then have a system that acts like EULA and ToS (which are ostensibly the same thing) are legally binding forever?

      If I was to send an e-mail to any company who used EULA ot ToS like these I might be tempted to add "Little did you know, but by reading this e-mail you have agreed to never use any silly EULA ever again, also all your software must now go open source...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by r3m0t (626466)
        I recieved this one from UCAS [ucas.com] technical support several times:

        This message is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately. You may not copy this message or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person or take any action based on them.

        E-Mails are susceptible to interference. UCAS accepts no responsibility for information, errors or omissions in this e-mail, nor/or for its use or misuse nor/or for any act committed or omitted in connection with

  • I don't have a EULA/Warning or anything. I don't get warnings if I go to inappropriate sites. I signed a contract at the begining of my employment that specified exceptable online activity. If I violate that contract, I'm out a job.

    -Rick
  • So, if I RTFA correctly, some government organization decided that NCR followed their policies too well and fired someone for a definite-fire offense... And they're ordering them not to?

    This is exactly how inane workplace policies start. Now they need to daily monitor everyone's workstation and compile a file against them to prove they knowingly and repeatedly violated the Code of Conduct before they fire them. Say goodbye to any privacy those employees had AT ALL.

    Yes, I realize that I have no privacy at
  • What about a signed contract being required before you can use any software. Be it on the job to get that fancy new laptop, or something you buy from the store to use at home. You have to sign the contract before you even get to walk out with the box.

    If that isnt enforceable, then nothing in the world is and its a free-for-all.
  • by AusIV (950840) on Monday November 06, 2006 @10:34AM (#16734899)
    Having read the article, it sounds to me that he got in trouble for downloading porn on the laptop issued to him by work, not necessarily at work. I know several people who have laptops assigned to them by their employers that they take everywhere - some don't even have their own computer at home. My guess is that he was using the laptop to download porn off the clock (possibly at home), but when word got out, the employer sacked him for misusing their laptop. I'm not going into whether or not he should have been doing this, or whether the employer had a right to fire him, I'm just stating that it doesn't sound to me like he was downloading porn at work.
    • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
      My guess is that he was using the laptop to download porn off the clock (possibly at home), but when word got out, the employer sacked him for misusing their laptop. I'm not going into whether or not he should have been doing this, or whether the employer had a right to fire him, I'm just stating that it doesn't sound to me like he was downloading porn at work.

      What he *was* was stupid. He should have booted from a Knoppix LiveCD before engaging in ... questionable ... activity. After you shut down, the

    • A few years ago, I was working in a team that was actively participating in MPEG4 standards so every couple of mounthes, one or two guys were sent to a week-long conference with a conpagny laptop.
      The funny part was that the team bought a couple of video games once in a while and installed them on request on those laptops to fight conference/hotel room boredom, diferent place, diferent rules...
      (The team members were also asked on which DVD they wanted to test the encoders and they eventually had a very good
    • "My guess is that he was using the laptop to download porn off the clock (possibly at home), but when word got out, the employer sacked him for misusing their laptop."

      The critical question, though, is how did it get out? Did he mention it in passing, or did somebody walk by and see it? If they saw it, wouldn't that imply that he had it up at work? (the porn, I mean...)

  • So, I think most of us can agree, porn at work == bad

    If the laptop was his and his alone to use, then why is it a bad thing (or a good thing)? Especially if there's spyware and virus protection on the computer and he doesn't catch anything bad. As far as data, there should be a corporate data directory that's autosynched to the company servers regularly, whenever he's connected to the company net or VPN. The laptop should be wiped before being given to the next employee anyway, as a matter of policy, i

  • First off, I don't think the same non-binding argument would fly in US courts. Second (and hopefully tongue-in-cheek), is that Austrailian businesses will now need to include such sign-offs at the end of a training course, which will include an assessment, so they can prove that the employees were exposed to the content of the code of conduct.

    Were the non-binding nature of an "automatic" or "mechanical" signature process be appplied to US Law, there are a whole slew of disclosures (especially in real est
  • As someone who writes and has to figure out ways to get people to understand and see a corporate policy, I can relate to this. My questions is, was a click-through the only means by which the business promoted its policy? We put out important, "need-to-know" policies in more than one way. We have click-throughs, a printed magazine that's shipped to each employee and have even made posters to be hung up in break-rooms. We use other methods as well. Our users are saturated I feel. Still, I have to quest
  • The question is -- what replaces them?

    Something shorter that can actually be read in less than an hour or some crap.

    The real question is whether the company should be held liable for how much software companies (ie - someone else) have diluted the value of license agreements.

    yes yes yes yes yes accept accept accept.
  • Well, a contract has to be (by definition) an agreement of 2 parties. There has to be some way to show that you know what you agreed to before you agreed to it. How about a short quiz on details of the contract before you are convince the provider of services that you actually understand the contract. Before anyone screams that is too difficult, DMV does it. They have a test you have to pass to prove a basic understanding of the laws governing behavior on public roads. Anyone asking you to sign a click
  • The question is -- what replaces them?

    Rather obvious I'd say, a decent employer (line management and HR) has regular, at least annual, meetings with it's staff.
    These can be called assessments or reviews or whatever, a planning for the coming period/year should be part of them.

    And that's where a code of conduct should be discussed (or even signed when minimal trust is a problem).

  • So, I think most of us can agree, porn at work == bad,


    You must be new here.

  • If a US court tosses shrink-wrap licenses on the grounds they are automatic, here's what you'll see replacing them within a few years:

    For consumer-grade shrink-wrapped products and many business products:
    State and federal laws to legitimize most or all common features of shrink-wrap licenses, particularly limits on copying and arbitration clauses.

    For custom software, high-end business software, and the like:
    Signed contracts. On paper. With initials next to every major item.
    • by Todd Knarr (15451) *

      Been tried. See UCITA. Consumer outrage killed it in all but 2 states.

    • by b0s0z0ku (752509)
      For custom software, high-end business software, and the like: Signed contracts. On paper. With initials next to every major item.

      That's done all the time anyway with custom software.

      -b.

  • The perfect solution would be to ensure that everyone takes along a friendly lawyer, when going their computer store and sit down with the sales clerk and find out what the EULA can and can't let them do. Totally inconvenient but I can imagine a candit camera scene right now :)
  • This would be more interesting if the person worked for Lightspeed University [lightspeed...ersity.com]. Then the title of the article could be:

    Man Fired for NOT having porn on his computer.
  • by Bob9113 (14996) on Monday November 06, 2006 @11:17AM (#16735493) Homepage
    the IRC said there was an 'air of automatically' about the annual signing off of employees on NCR's code of conduct, 'a degree of mechanical, unthinking routine in employees making a commitment to abide by the code.'"
    So, I think most of us can agree, porn at work == bad, but recognition that Click EULAs/other agreements are not binding is probably good. The question is -- what replaces them?


    How about the things that contracts are always supposed to have: consideration and negotiability. When one side has a team of lawyers and the other is intended to blindly accept the agreement, it is not the basis for good contract law. In the US, it's not even supposed to be valid. In the States, a contract is supposed to require consideration (something exchanged for the rights either side is giving up) and negotiability (the ability to discuss and request alteration of specific terms of the contract).

    Beyond the fact that EULA's, AUP's, and employment agreements are rarely negotiable, the negotiability idea implies that both sides must have similar levels of legal understanding or representation. US businesses have been pushing the boundaries on this for years for many reasons, not the least of which is that it enables the side with more laywers to abuse the other side. For a simple example, look at the record industry.

    While the law may not uphold the idea of similar representation, it should be obvious to any rational being that enforcing contracts formed without similar representation is bad for society. It cannot help but lead to the abuses we see today. In fact, there are many places in the States where certain contracts cannot be entered without both parties having legal representation - for example home sales in Connecticut (and I'm sure many states). While I don't much care for the idea of giving more money to lawyers, any system of civil law must eventually devolve to a state where lawyers are required for all human interaction of any consequence. This is the situation the US (and much of the world) finds itself in today. As such, one side having lawyers and the other not leads to an inherently tilted playing field. Given also that the world's predominate economic system (the free market) requires a level playing field, it should be apparent that disproportionate representation is an inherently bad idea.

    How was that for rambling?
  • Since the court doesn't accept 'automatic' or 'mechanical' acceptance, I say each employee must be required to compose and perform a dance routine indicating his or her acceptance.

    Or the courts could simply recognize the right of employers to fire someone who breaks obvious rules.
  • Not if you're a sperm donor at the fertility clinic.
  • Tie the employee's pay raise into signing the code of conduct. A Contract is an exchange of benefits---if one side gives a benefit and the other does not, then it's a gift. So, the annual rote signing of the CoC represents a one-sided benefit. That is, the company benefits from the avoidance of porn, but the employee gets nothing. Contrastly, the increase in salary is a benefit given to the employee, because pay raises are not obligatory. By having the CoC signed in order to obtain a pay raise, then the CoC
  • Is it, like ...

    pr0n?
  • Basicly, when employees are employed at the company, make them sign (and make existing employees sign or be fired) a contract. This contract (there is probobly already provisions for NDAs and such written into the contracts) would set down rules such as "no porn at work". If the employee breaks the contract (e.g. by downloading porn at work), there are well established laws and rules governing what happens and what the employer can do.

    Any employee who refuses to sign a contract that prohibits porn at work i
    • Ah, yes, but that's still not enforceable.

      When the company says, "sign this or you're fired," then you're signing under duress. They are threatening you with loss of income, and perhaps loss of housing or spousing.

      That's the point - if the contract says stuff like, "as a condition of employment, you gotta sign" then it's not a valid agreement. (This depends on your jurisdiction, of course.)

      The guy should wank at home, though. Who would want to use his office / chair next? Yuck.
  • by Chacham (981)
    So, i saw the title "Login Code of Conduct Found Not Binding" and thought maybe, just maybe, it'd be an interesting article on coding on this news for nerds site. Instead, i find someone who agreed to something and subsequently broke that agreement, and was praised for it. This is very disappointing.

    Stories like this belong on Digg where popularity is high and maturity is low. Can't we have some real stories here, where maturity is high, and popularity is low?
  • Obviously someone doesn't know how to read, and also doesn't know how to copypasta.
  • Perhaps they are just continuing in the footsteps of NCR's founder, John Patterson, who was notorious for firing some of the greatest inventors of the time from NCR for misdeeds as simple as riding a horse imperfectly at company events. (They were sometimes re-hired the next day by someone else).
  • I don't see why downloading porn at work should be worse than reading /., or playing Minesweeper.

    Then again, I'm not an American, so there is probably some cultural nuances I miss.
  • So, I think most of us can agree, porn at work == bad

    I don't agree to that.

    If the statement is expanded to something like "many workplaces have policies in place prohibiting the download of porn", then I'd think it a true statement. I'd even accept "porn is a controversial thing, and many people don't want exposure to it". But stated as is, it too easily implies an immoral component to the act of downloading per se, which I feel obligated to reject.

    How ironic that the ./ editor's comments for a

  • Maybe something like this would help:

    http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/eulalyzer.html [javacoolsoftware.com]
  • > ...but recognition that Click EULAs/other agreements are not binding is
    > probably good.

    I see no mention of "clicking" or "EULAs" in the article.

Nothing is impossible for the man who doesn't have to do it himself. -- A.H. Weiler

Working...