OK, so my challenge to readers last week to find a worse ToS (Terms of Service) than Dilbert.com's looks like it's going to be pretty easy. We've already got one very worthy candidate recently pointed out by a reader: Comcast's broadband subscriber agreement.

"In my area Comcast is my broadband provider of choice and recently I happened to read some of their terms of service document for their High Speed Internet (HSI) service," the reader wrote. "To my amazement, I learned if you accept the Comcast TOS, you give up all rights to privacy of your email and anything else that is content. They not only can access everything you send using the Service and can publish it on the Internet if they so desire! Sounds unbelievable, right? But it's true:"

"Authorization. Comcast does not claim any ownership of any material that you publish, transmit or distribute using HSI. By using HSI to publish, transmit or distribute material or content, you (i) warrant that the material or content complies with the provisions of this Agreement, (ii) consent to and authorize Comcast, its agents, suppliers, and affiliates to reproduce, publish, distribute, and display the content worldwide and (iii) warrant that you have the right to provide this authorization. You acknowledge that material posted or transmitted using HSI may be copied, republished or distributed by third parties, and you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Comcast, its agents, suppliers, and affiliates for any harm resulting from these actions."

Why, the reader wonders, does Comcast need to claim the right to distribute your data to anyone and everyone? "They disclaim 'ownership" of your content, but when you accept their Terms you give them -- and their agents, suppliers and affiliates, which could number in the dozens or hundreds of entities -- the rights to reproduce, publish, distribute and display your content worldwide. That certainly seems to me to be essentially equivalent to ownership, since it doesn't say they have to pay you for it, nor does it place any restrictions on the use."

There are plenty of other provisions in the subscriber agreement and the accompanying Acceptable Use Policy, which is also part of the ToS, that strike the reader as going too far. But what makes Comcast's even more ominous is our knowledge of some Comcast practices that lie behind the legalese. When the Comcast ToS says they have the right to terminate without notice and for any reason, we know that they mean it. And don't forget that when Comcast was caught red-handed deliberately slow P2P traffic, one of the first things they did was change the ToS to "clarify" that they had the right the cripple performance in the name of "reasonable network management."

"I just find the whole thing to be sinister," the reader wrote. I'd bet that if the average Comcast user were told that Comcast can turn over all of their emails, chats, browsing history, etc, without a court order, just on the request of 'authorities' or other ISPs, etc., they would be shocked. And if they were told that Comcast owns everything they type or upload as well, they'd be appalled."

Comcast's ToS is indeed pretty bad, but I bet you can find one that's even worse. When you do, tell us about by writing Foster@gripe2ed.com or post your comments below.