SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Starbucks says it'll block porn on its public Wi-Fi next year
For years, Starbucks has caught flak for not preventing its customers from watching porn on its in-store Wi-Fi. Now the coffee retailer says that next year it will introduce a filter that prevents customers from viewing porn and other explicit material in stores, as first reported by Business Insider.
[...] This week, Enough Is Enough CEO Donna Rice Hughes said Starbucks had failed to protect its customers and follow through with its plan to block explicit content. "By breaking its commitment, Starbucks is keeping the doors wide open for convicted sex offenders and others to fly under the radar from law enforcement and use free, public Wi-Fi services to access illegal child porn and hard-core pornography," she said.
A petition from Enough Is Enough said that public Wi-Fi networks "are attracting pedophiles and sex offenders" and put children at risk.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by edIII on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:43PM
Still doing it. I don't give a flat fuck either. Nobody is going to tell me I cannot offer hospitality, and that is what offering wireless Internet IS. Being hospitable to your guests, and even random strangers. That does NOT mean you have to give them unfettered access. My guest network is isolated, and bandwidth restricted to the point you are not doing Netflix or YouTube. At least not YouTube in HD. I even filter it, but only against Big Ad :)
There are always potential consequences for civil disobedience. It's in the very definition of the term itself, and I could not be civilly disobedient if there were not consequences right? Backing down because of the consequences, is giving into bad laws in the first place. Civil disobedience is a form of protesting, and women and children were murdered by the police in the streets to obtain the 10-hour day. It won't be the first time, or the last, the the threat of violence from the police acts to chill righteous dissent.
Perhaps, instead of being afraid of the SWAT so much to the extent we give up our rights, we just reform the SWAT teams? Change the way that they can be called in the first place, and demand some basic sanity checks before the bust through the door. It shouldn't be possible to get the police so suspicious of a residence, with so little fucking evidence, that they treat it like hardened seasoned criminals are inside with advanced weaponry torturing toddlers and 90 year old ladies. SWAT should be strictly limited to a secondary response team, and can only go in when COPS directly report that there is danger inside. Meaning a detective, or undercover office, has been actively developing intelligence on the house in question. Otherwise, like what happened to the "actual criminal" in your example, regular police need to show up and knock at the door first.
Still, bring it on. I won't let fear of other people doing improper and bad things to me stop me from doing the right things. Civil disobedience was never meant to be consequence free, nor was it meant for the weak and cowardly.
You mean in the eyes of the police that need to be fired. That's an obnoxious and unsupportable statement. Offering hospitality, or in this case, anonymous Internet usage, is not equivalent to terrorism or organized crime. That is extremely hyperbolic, and paints how many different homes and businesses with the same brush? I see open wifi ports all the damn time, and maybe 80% have a capture page because guest services are running on the device. Most I can still get through the outside.
On that note, by your logic, Comcast is the biggest offender :) The open wireless they operate on all their customer's devices (without permission or remuneration) is quite easily bypassed, quite easily used anonymously, and could easily get the same fucking house swatted'.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.