Slashdot Mirror


Starbucks and McDonald's Announce Porn Blocks On Their Wi-Fi Networks (cnn.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN Money: Anti-pornography groups have succeeded in their efforts to get Starbucks and McDonald's to block porn on the chains' Wi-Fi networks..."We had not heard from our customers that this was an issue, but we saw an opportunity that is consistent with our goal of providing an enjoyable experience for families," McDonald's said in a statement... Starbucks said Friday it's will do so the same thing at its company-owned stores around the globe as well. "Once we determine that our customers can access our free Wi-Fi in a way that also doesn't involuntarily block unintended content, we will implement this in our stores," said a Starbucks spokesperson. "In the meantime, we reserve the right to stop any behavior that interferes with our customer experience, including what is accessed on our free Wi-Fi..."
Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its platform.

41 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. next any union sites / labor law sites by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    next any union sites / labor law sites

  2. Surprising... by Etcetera · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... only that they didn't already have a content block like this up already. (I'm sure it was already against the click-through ToS, but that's basically meaningless anyway.) There's nothing unreasonable about this. It's a public place, it's a private service, etc. I seem to recall a case a while back about public libraries being OK with blocking this on community-standards grounds in some jurisdictions.

    And seriously, if you need to go to McDonalds and configure a VPN to watch porn you should probably try to put that effort into improving your career prospects so you can afford an internet connection at home.

    1. Re: Surprising... by thundercattt · · Score: 2

      That was my first thought too. As a Sysadmin, that should of been a given ages ago. A little amusing though, because up here 90% of who are on the wifi are kids under 10 or elderly.

  3. Jacking off in McDonald's by ronmon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now that might be a public health problem if you spooged on the table.

    BTW, do people really surf porn in those places?

    1. Re:Jacking off in McDonald's by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Yes

      You say that as if you have first-hand knowledge.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  4. And all of the municipal Internet will too by mi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All of the celebrated "municipal WiFi" and "community Internet" will do the same before you can say: "Statism".

    You have been warned.

    VPN? Is that something you'd use to get around our laws, citizen? Well, let's make that illegal too...

    Oh, and hate speech should not be allowed to travel over taxpayer-funded networks either, should it be? We like it wholesome in this town.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  5. What the hell does this mean? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 2

    "Once we determine that our customers can access our free Wi-Fi in a way that also doesn't involuntarily block unintended content".

  6. More distractions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its official platform.

    Ah, the American people easily distracted by horseshit issues.

    1. Re:More distractions by mikeiver1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So true, the middle class is shrinking and the more people are slipping into the poor class, the rich are an order of magnitude richer since the crash and corporations are far better off. BUT, some dude jerking off in the privacy of his own home is a public health crisis that needs to be dealt with. Fucking assholes. Yet another reason that Starbucks and McD suck and I don't go there.

  7. This is so absolutely cool! by tlambert · · Score: 2

    This is so absolutely cool!

    Who gets to be the first to sue McDonalds or Starbucks for not preventing a piece of porn from getting through, since they're now taking explicit responsibility for the content served over their computer networks?

  8. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by Desler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?

  9. Nothin' to do with blocking porn by rsilvergun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and everything to do with limiting bandwidth and exposure (there's a pun in there somewhere). I'm guessing they got a few cease and desists from porn companies for folks bit torrenting stuff. As an added bonus you don't have creepy dudes huffing and puffing at a McDonalds or Starbucks (well, not as many anyway)

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  10. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by Desler · · Score: 2

    "Oh, that's just that Game of Thrones show, honey." You, know, that violent show with nudity that won't be blocked by this policy.

  11. Re:This policy is a bit premature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Quite the contrary. When some porn slips through the filter they now may have some legal liabilitiy.

  12. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Not that I eat at McDonalds anymore..

    Me neither, I always use the drive-thru

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  13. Who the heck watches porn at McDonald's? by ZorinLynx · · Score: 2

    I've eaten at McD's many times and not once have I seen someone watching porn there. Also, it's not the sort of environment that makes sense for watching that content; you don't have any privacy to do the sort of things that someone watching porn tends to want to do.

    What's the point?

  14. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    I think blocking porn videos in their stores isn't unreasonable. The idea of someone taking their kid to McDonald's and have to sit near some perv watching porn because FREEDOM seems wrong to me. If you want to watch porn, or in general surf any and all sites, do it on your own Interne connection..

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  15. Time and place by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is a free country, if I want to watch porn at McDonalds then so be it!!!!

    You seem to forget that it's a free country for McDonald's too. They are under no obligation to cooperate with your pathetic need to watch porn on their property.

    And seriously, if you really are so desperate that you need to watch porn at McDonald's then you need to go play in traffic or get serious psychiatric help. Time and place people. Time and place.

    1. Re:Time and place by anegg · · Score: 2

      Perhaps more to the point, if people start using VPNs so that they can view porn while they are at a family restaurant, McDonald's may choose to start blocking VPNs (like my local library did). And that would screw up my ability to securely access my Contacts, Calendar, and e-mail while I'm chowing down at lunch or dinner while I'm on the road.

      We are all members of a *society* - anyone who wants to be anti-social should excuse themselves and head for the woods or the mountains. Good luck finding porn there. If someone likes the benefits they gain from society, they should understand that they need to put up with some restraints as well. (Don't they sell stroke mags at convenience stores anymore for the wankers?)

    2. Re:Time and place by Cyberpunk+Reality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And what exactly is "porn" again?

      The Venus de Milo? Greta Garbo in a swimsuit? Protest coverage? Dancing?

      Apparently not Game of Thrones though.

      --
      Rule 35 of the internet: "If it can be hacked, it will be". - Charles Stross
    3. Re:Time and place by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I just want McD people to mind their own business and to not stick their noses into mine. Is it too much to ask for?

      And you want this consideration while you are literally sitting in the middle of their business?

      The way I see it, they'll keep their nose out your business; as long as you keep your ass out of theirs.

    4. Re:Time and place by allquixotic · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's why you just need to make your VPN traffic look like normal web traffic. There are various protocols out there that are so obfuscated that even a deep packet inspection firewall couldn't tell that it's not ordinary web traffic.

      It adds overhead and latency, but it's really not that difficult to do. Somewhat ironically, it is based on the exact same principle as terrorists use to infiltrate countries they want to blow up: you become really, really good at looking exactly like the sheeple. You don't stand out. You look perfectly ordinary just like the rest of the law-abiding citizens. Except that the *semantics* of the data you're transferring -- which no firewall or DPI could possibly understand -- are such that porn content (or whatever) is being delivered to your computer.

      Blocking is for deterring casual use, not for actually preventing something from being done. See: Great Firewall of China.

    5. Re:Time and place by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      Why do people say stupid things like this? The First Amendment applies to the government, not private industry. Private industry is free to censor whatever they want in any way they want. Don't believe me? Read the Amendment:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      See that first word? Congress. That means government. It says nothing about a business infringing on your freedom of speech. You know why? Because they're not government.

      Must have a bunch of Scalia wannabes with the amount of tripe about the Constitution spewed out on here.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:Time and place by allquixotic · · Score: 2

      The protocol negotiation and setup routines of a VPN are extremely easy to detect. When it's your "ISP" -- the network gateway providing your uplink -- that is trying to prevent you from getting on a VPN, it is extremely trivial for the gateway to block most VPNs because they have such well-known, "overt" setup/negotiation protocols.

      Even OpenVPN on TCP port 443, which by all counts looks a helluva lot like a standard HTTPS connection, has just enough of a "tell" that it can be blocked while the gateway still allows normal HTTPS connections over the web.

      While it's true that *endpoints* on an already established VPN tunnel cannot tell that the traffic is being handed to another client over a VPN, it is very easy for a *gateway* to detect all but the most stealthy VPNs.

      That's why I said that specific mitigations (in terms of traffic shape and protocol "appearance", using steganography if required) are required if you want to bypass this kind of "anti-VPN" restriction on the gateway you are connected to (for instance, a free WiFi hotspot that's trying to block porn, and then tries to block VPNs to prevent people from using them to circumvent the block).

      It's not even about setting up your own server. I could give you a description of a certain sequence of packets that will identify OpenVPN connections (even over TCP) 100% of the time, and never false positive on anything else. You could safely implement that rule on *all* remote IP addresses on a stateful firewall gateway and prevent people from using OpenVPN, regardless of the port.

    7. Re:Time and place by mysidia · · Score: 2

      McDonald's may choose to start blocking VPNs

      And just like trying to block websites, there will be a wide berth of false positives frustrating thousands of patrons who weren't even trying to look at porn, but a website they wanted is blocked spuriously by the tool.

      Meanwhile.... the people who were targeting McDonalds for their porn-watching needs, can just continue to watch porn by popping a DVD in their laptop, or playing the file they pre-downloaded while they were at home.

      The 1% of folks who are McDonalds porn aficionados can also still view porn at McDonalds by accessing the sites through your cellular data.

      Also, if the restaurant tried to block cellular data or Personal WiFi hotspots, that would actually be illegal, and they could be fined billions of $$$ by the FCC.

  16. Grow up by sjbe · · Score: 2

    So in short, they are determining and deciding on what constitutes an enjoyable experience for their clients.

    Yes they are. If you have a problem with that, take your business (and your porn) elsewhere. And frankly I agree with them. McDonald's is not the appropriate place for watching porn and never will be. You seem to have a profound entitlement complex if their actions actually offend you.

    I am not sying they do not reserve the right to do whatever they want on their network, but diseminating the mesage this way doesn't cut it for me.

    So you are saying you think it is a good idea to watch porn in a McDonald's and how dare they prevent it. Otherwise there is no reason for you to care at all.

  17. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

    They are not deciding what is or isn't good for you. They are deciding what is good for them and they have every right to do so. The message they are sending is that of a family and kid friendly place.

    That, and they don't want anybody confused when you ask for a Big Mac.

  18. Heading off problems before they happen by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The other half of the quote you provided is that they are spending money to "fix" a problem that may not have existed.

    They are doing it to head off any lawsuits that might potentially arise. You can be sure the first time some mom observes someone watching porn in front of her kids using McDonald's wifi that a lawsuit and tons of bad PR would follow. Taking reasonable measures to block this problem before it happens is a very sensible thing to do. If you don't like it, don't shop there. But frankly if you actually have a problem with this you probably need psychiatric help.

    1. Re:Heading off problems before they happen by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2

      You can be sure the first time some mom observes someone watching porn in front of her kids using McDonald's wifi that a lawsuit and tons of bad PR would follow.

      That's actually not what happened in this case. Nobody found themselves sitting one table away from some guy eating a Big Mac while jacking off.
      What precipitated this was parents whining to politicians that although they had porn filters installed in their home wifi networks, their kids might be able to take their tablets to McDonald's and watch it there.

  19. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except this really doesn't constitute McDonalds or Starbucks "deciding what's good for you" at all. They're simply exercising some control over what they let you do with THEIR Internet connection. Taken to the extreme, you could cry foul that your local Mexican restaurant keeps deciding what kind of music you want to hear by piping in only Hispanic music, when you actually prefer punk rock. But no ... it's their place and their right to craft the type of dining experience they want it to have.

    To my knowledge, none of these chain restaurants have ever put out pamphlets, posters or other advertising advising you to stop watching porn. They just don't want you to do it on their connection while eating there. That's perfectly reasonable.

  20. Re:This policy is a bit premature by anegg · · Score: 2

    The $15/hour minimum wage is just a placeholder for now in the US Democratic platform. The actual objective is to get a Guaranteed Minimum Income for everyone. I'm not sure whether they think it should only apply to citizens.

  21. Not your property by sjbe · · Score: 2

    And what exactly is "porn" again? The Venus de Milo? Greta Garbo in a swimsuit? Protest coverage? Dancing?

    I'm guessing your parents never had The Talk with you if you are actually trying to use this irrelevant nonsense as an argument.

    In this case "porn" is whatever McDonald's defines it to be. It's their property and they can do what they like with it. If you don't like it go elsewhere. If they lose business they might reconsider but I'm pretty sure they won't miss you or your porn.

  22. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

    No it's not, it's perfectly rational. Violence is, by and large, something to be avoided throughout your life. As such, fictional depictions of violence will not, by and large, change behavioral patterns. Whereas sex is something the vast majority of society will participate in, and there have been plenty of cases shown where porn consumption changes expectations of sexual experiences and relationships, generally for the worse.

  23. I have a solution! by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

    Provide a separate area for people to view porn.

    You could have little stalls with doors for privacy and actually charge them a quarter every 5 minutes or so.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  24. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whereas sex is something the vast majority of society will participate in

    You gotta remember who you're talking to.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  25. Just look what good has come from banning porn by ffkom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are some large countries in the world that have very strict bans on pornography. Specifically ones where Islam is the religion mandated by the government. Now look how well-behaved the youngsters who grew up there act towards women. How they don't need draconic measures to be kept from living out their sexual fantasies violently. Oh, you find that's not quite the case? Well, then maybe banning pornography is just outright stupid and harmful.

  26. Utah by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a free country, if I want to watch porn at McDonalds then so be it!!!!

    Utah recently passed a law making viewing pornography punishable by fines and 30 days in jail for "repeat offenders". This is a statement made by Paul Horner, a spokesman for Gov. Herbert:

    First time offenders will see fines of $100-$500, depending on the quantity of pornography or the amount of digital graphic content seized on the criminal's computer. Repeat offenders can expect 30 days in jail or worse, depending on what type of pornography is found in the individual's possession. Missionary style pornography will result in a fine or up to 30 days in jail, while pornography that involves any kind of homogayness, that being sodomy or Devil worshipping, will result in long-term prison sentences. Law enforcement will also be working closely with local ISPs and the NSA to monitor those who search out porn on the internet. We will win the war on porn and masturbation.

    The legislation was introduced by State Sen. Todd Weiler, who was on the Family Research Council's "Washington Watch" program, specifically complaining about McDonalds:

    TODD WEILER: McDonalds has free wi-fi, unfiltered wi-fi, in all of their locations, and I've had mothers in my Senate district call me and say, "I have filters in my home, I've come to find out that my teen's at McDonalds with a tablet, looking at porn!" And I said to McDonalds, "you're a family restaurant and you market to children! Why would you want to be a purveyor of pornography? And I think they're going to change that. And I think, you know, we also have to look at the libraries. And I'm glad you, sir [FRC] did that. I think it's a bill we need to sponsor, in Utah, because you know many of our libraries, you know, the librarians will put their hands over their hearts and talk about the First Amendment and yet if these libraries and these McDonalds were giving cigarettes to our children, we'd all be up in arms, we'd be picketing them, But somehow it's okay if they deliver pornography to them."
    TONY PERKINS [host]: Yeah, yeah, not only that, but you know how we've had all this outrage over "second-hand smoke". You don't even have to access the porn yourself to be sitting in the booth next to somebody or in the you know at the table at the public library next to someone and that was the testimony we had, that you had people that would be accessing it and you had kids walking by or families, and they'd be exposed to it as well. So if it's a public facility, there's some sense that the public has a right not to be confronted by this.
    TODD WEILER: Yeah, and that's what I think that's often lost in the First Amendment discussion, because because someone may have the First Amendment right, according to the U.S. Supreme Court, to view pornography, but what about my First Amendment right to not view it? And, you know, David Cameron, in England, which is a country much more progressive than we are on issues of sexuality and nudity, David Cameron met with the Internet service providers in England two years ago and asked them to change the Internet to a default setting of no-porn, and to force the user to opt in to porn. That's something I'd like the U.S. to gravitate toward, and I've already talked with Senator Orrin Hatch about working with me on that.

    1. Re:Utah by geggam · · Score: 5, Insightful

      , but what about my First Amendment right to not view it?

      Interesting... Can we do this to churches and their habit of putting torture devices ( cross ) on their front lawns ?

    2. Re:Utah by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative
      Oh, there's stuff in there::

      Sec. 4. [Religious liberty.] The rights of conscience shall never be infringed. The State shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office of public trust or for any vote at any election; nor shall any person be incompetent as a witness or juror on account of religious belief or the absence thereof. There shall be no union of Church and State, nor shall any church dominate the State or interfere with its functions.

      Anyone who has lived here for more than a week will find this laughable. I don't know about the (elected) judiciary, but it certainly isn't taken seriously by the legislature or the executive branch. The governor's spokesman's statements are pretty clear on that ("Missionary style pornography will result in a fine or up to 30 days in jail, while pornography that involves any kind of homogayness, that being sodomy or Devil worshipping, will result in long-term prison sentences.") The governor himself made the following statements after signing this into law:

      "This is a historic day for the good, clean-living, people who call the state of Utah home," Herbert told reporters. "This new law will protect our children and make our state pure from the heathens who go against God's will."

      And you'd better clear your browser history when the cops come knocking. I doubt the NSA will help them, but local law enforcement is on board with this:

      "I want to assure the good citizens of Utah that the brave men and women of law enforcement will be out in full force, tracking down porn offenders, and bringing them to justice," Sheriff Jim Tracy of Utah County said. "I can promise you this, those who we find breaking any porn laws will be seeing jail bars. This new law is about protecting our children and that is exactly what we plan to do."

      Interestingly, the Utah Constitution conforms to Trump's standard for "libel":

      Sec. 15. [Freedom of speech and of the press. Libel.] No law shall be passed to abridge or restrain the freedom of speech or of the press. In all criminal prosecutions for libel the truth may be given in evidence to the jury; and if it shall appear to the jury that the matter charged as libelous is true, and was published with good motives, and for justifiable ends, the party shall be acquitted.

  27. Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Boobies are not for little kids!!!!^11111

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  28. Re:I must be getting old... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

    That doesn't surprise me. But do you watch it at McDonald's?

    No, I prefer In-N-Out Burger.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.