If they offer security protection they're liable... that's why, and their lawyers, and accountants probably told them that was a bad business decision.
Offering a service "as is" is still better than offering no service at all.
"Tim Horton WIFI service has no protection and in fact are preventing you from protecting yourself .... its free however"
i argue the opposite that if you prevent my ability to protect myself your even worse liability then making it so i have none.
look up what contributory liability is and no matter how you try and word it son its a fact what i said.
its like saying its ok we are gonna sell you a house and dont worry you dont need locks but if ya do were not liable WHO sells houses without locks these days?
and the first person getting hacked there will make news and ill be right here slapping the inability to even bother to protect ones self
as the reason.
its one thing to say look if you use out service you are liable for all potential damage ....its another to prevent me form using all forms a abilities that might protect me.
and your right thats why civil lawsuits happen against bell canada so often and why tim hortons using bell canada might also be an issue for a lot a people in the first place....not you though .....
