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.

14 of 284 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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/
  6. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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 ?