Starbucks and McDonald's Announce Porn Blocks On Their Wi-Fi Networks (cnn.com) 284
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.
Meanwhile, this week, the Republican Party officially added the "public health crisis" of porn to its platform.
next any union sites / labor law sites (Score:3, Insightful)
next any union sites / labor law sites
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate America? I thought this was America, OK?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you hate America? I thought this was America, OK?
Sadly, In name only. in name only...
Re: (Score:2)
You're right. I'm pretty sure this is a first amendment issue. Possible a second amendment one as well.
Re: (Score:2)
If you mean jerking off in McDonalds to gun porn, then hell yeah. First and Second Amendment issues, right there.
Surprising... (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.
Re: Surprising... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Agreed, though this does seem to be a minor setback for Starbucks in its path toward becoming "Coffee for Men" and the home of the full body latte [youtube.com]. (One of the few ways it seems we may not be moving toward Idiocracy these days.)
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit that I'm conflicted as to whether or not to click that link.
Re: (Score:2)
Why wouldn't you use a VPN when connected to a public AP like you'd find at McD's or Starbucks anyway?
Jacking off in McDonald's (Score:4, Funny)
Now that might be a public health problem if you spooged on the table.
BTW, do people really surf porn in those places?
Re: (Score:3)
You say that as if you have first-hand knowledge.
Damn. Can't use a Star Wars quote here. (Score:2)
Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more ...
Nope. Can't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Leia: The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more ...
Nope. Can't do it.
Sorry about the mess.
And all of the municipal Internet will too (Score:3, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
So, what you're saying is, "As goes McDonalds, so goes the local government"?
You're afraid that government's going to be run like one of the most successful businesses in US history?
It's funny the logical knots that "small-government" conservative libertarians can tie themselves into.
Re: (Score:2)
If by "successful" you mean poisoning their customers, avoiding billions in US taxes, and contributing to the overall obesity epidemic in the US, then, yeah, sure. That sounds like a perfect business model for the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Your outrage detector is broken. Most SJWs (and most feminists these days) are pro-porn. This very page notes that the official republican party platform is anti-porn, and it's a safe bet that's because of the religious right, not because SJWs own the republican party.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/... [cnn.com]
What the hell does this mean? (Score:3)
Good luck (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, we will implement this in our stores,"
Good luck with that.
There is nothing really "wrong" with porn. But go ahead and try to define what it is and how it is "bad" while other things are "good." That is the problem with censorship. Of course, they (the establishment owners) have the right to do this, it is their own WiFi and they can do what they want. (That right should
More distractions (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.
Re:More distractions (Score:4, Insightful)
This is so absolutely cool! (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
This will be an issue at some point.
The college I work for doesn't filter based on keywords, domain names, various lists, etc. I asked the network admin why and was told "if we try to block anything, we can be held liable for anything we don't block".
The college's solution? Get caught surfing porn and you can face loss of lab or library privileges, being forcefully withdrawn from current classes and being blocked from registering for $next_term or longer, etc. Even the possibility of the campus police i
Nothin' to do with blocking porn (Score:4, Interesting)
Who the heck watches porn at McDonald's? (Score:3)
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?
family friendly? (Score:2)
they do know how families are made, right? if not, i can show you a video about how... just not at a McDonald's. ;)
Oh the irony.... (Score:2)
Is concerned about public health...
I have a solution! (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.
Well I guess that means (Score:2)
they can start by blocking yesterday's Trump-Pence logo.
Just look what good has come from banning porn (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans: Enemies Of Freedom? (Score:2, Insightful)
What's next? Burkas for Women? Public Stonings of Gays? Full-blown Sharia Law adopted into the Federal Code?
I swear: Next to ISIS, The Republican Party is the most Anti-American organization on the planet!
And I mean that with all sincerity. I despise Hillary; but SOMETHING has got to be done to stop the Republicans and their relentless drive to make America the next Theocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny guy. Stoning gays is a Muslim thing. Democrats love Muslims. Burkas, Dem issue too. You should see all the Detroiters I see wearing them. Guess which way they vote?
WOOSH!!!
Their equipment; their rules (Score:2)
Why is this even an issue?
Admittedly, the "think of the children" argument is stupid on it's face, but if it convinces Mickey D's and Star Trek's, whatever.
If they want to block KKK and the American Nazi Party, that's cool too.
If they want to *promote* Klan etc, that's also cool. The fact they should be permitted to promote what they believe in; not the Klan itself. The Klan is not cool.
Your rights aren't being violated by McD's et. al. blocking porn. You're rights *are* being violated, but if you're wor
Stupid idea that wasn't necesary (Score:2)
Say it ain't so! (Score:2)
Not Starbucks, the company with the mermaid logo.
I was sort of hoping that they'd step it up to this [googleusercontent.com].
Re: (Score:3)
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..
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Fuck their kid (no not literally). I don't want to sit next to some perv getting his jollies watching porn in some restaurant.
Gross.
Re: (Score:2)
Orthogonal to the issue. You can download without watching and watch from local storage.
They could conceivably watch porn with a very narrow angle filter or glass and you'd never know.
But yeah, you can't walk around with a goat.se t-shirt ether.
Grow up (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
That, and they don't want anybody confused when you ask for a Big Mac.
Re: (Score:2)
So in short, they are determining and deciding on what constitutes an enjoyable experience for their clients.
No, not at all. The customers are telling them what an enjoyable experience is, and what detracts from it, and they are responding. In this case customer complaints are input into the decision.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, they're deciding what's good for *them* by ensuring their customers don't see anything controversial on someone else's laptop, and Americans are somewhat puritanical in their views about sex. You can easily imagine lawsuits being filed over some accidental view of some T&A rather than someone getting shot up in an action movie, which might be grumbled about but probably ignored.
Also... one would hope that most people have a sense of proprietary about what sort of material one should view in publi
Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for (Score:5, Insightful)
But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?
Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:I hate it when companies decide what's good for (Score:5, Funny)
You gotta remember who you're talking to.
Re: (Score:2)
Boobies. How disingenuous of you.
Re: (Score:3)
Boobies are not for little kids!!!!^11111
Re: (Score:2)
Wait a minute... people are watching beheading videos at McDonalds?
Man, we live in a sick fucking society. First porn and now this. Does anyone go to McDonalds just to eat a burger anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
Just preventing lawsuits and bad PR (Score:2)
But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?
That's not likely to result in a lawsuit. Someone watching porn might and it certainly would result in a ton of bad PR. Seriously folks, this is just McDonald's heading off a problem before it becomes a problem. I don't think they are making a big social statement.
Re: (Score:2)
But someone watching a violent movie, which won't be blocked, is okay for the kid to see, though, right?
How about documentaries about stoning gays, or throwing them off buildings?
Perfectly acceptable to these pseudo-Christians.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I eat at McDonalds anymore..
Me neither, I always use the drive-thru
Re: (Score:2)
Like God intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Like God intended.
I use the drve-up, too, of course.
But I occasionally feel like a single-page print job waiting in the queue behind the 150-page, duplex printed and stapled annual financial report being processed ahead of me!
Not NEARLY enough use of the "pullover slots" (background jobs) at some McDonald's, to allow more efficient queue operation.
Re: (Score:2)
I can do that on LTE. Not sure how a porn filter is going to prevent that.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you used most public wifi? Getting a YouTube video to load is usually a pretty time consuming process.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect it might be deliberate. They need the connection to be good enough to lure in customers - but if it's too good then those customers will sit around for an hour slowly sipping their drink and taking up a table.
Heading off problems before they happen (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Download it there, fap to it in private. Kids aren't stupid...Not that stupid anyhow.
Re: (Score:2)
Which actually, is a good thing. The parents are really the ones most vulnerable to being injured by pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite the contrary. When some porn slips through the filter they now may have some legal liabilitiy.
Re: (Score:3)
Time and place (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 the
Re:Time and place (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 stil
Re: (Score:2)
I forgot to mention that the next "step" in the cat and mouse circumvention / anti-circumvention arms race is to ban encryption as well as any traffic that the DPI firewall can't "understand". This is the Brave New World of universal surveillance that we are headed towards. Countries like China, Australia and the UK are leading the way, and the US is going there too, just perhaps a little bit slower because organizations like the EFF and ACLU exist to try and gum up the works of the process.
It may take a fe
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (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.
Not your property (Score:3)
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.
Re:Time and place (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 fir
Utah (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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:
What's that quote about everything not required will be illegal, and everything not illegal will be required?
Is there ANYONE within the sight of my words that thinks such legislation would not be void ab initio for being absolutely, blatantly repugnant to the U. S. Constitution?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I'm reading your words over an ISP in Utah, and I agree this law would be found to be void ab initio- but only in a federal court. A state judge in Utah making that determination would be excommunicated, not re-elected.
So Utah's Constitution doesn't derive it's power from the U.S. Constitution, like it does in most/all States? Also, I have personally never heard of a State Constitution that doesn't have an equivalent to the U.S. First Amendment. Are you saying that Utah's DOESN'T?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.")
Oopsie (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Utah (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 ?
Re: (Score:2)
...while pornography that involves any kind of homogayness, that being sodomy or Devil worshipping...
WTF???
Re: (Score:2)
"Oh Satan, I want it so bad... please come to my house right now... and all your minions in hell are invited too."
I think they just take the definition of "horny" a bit too literally here.
Re: (Score:2)
Devil in Miss Jones may qualify - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
... is "Devil worshipping porn" really a thing?
Rule 34 says yes.
Possible hoax or misunderstanding? (Score:2)
SCR 9, from last month, isn't an enforceable law and that quote reeks of parody as well as not appearing in a Google News search.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The internet must not become a safe haven for predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children's safety and well-being. We applaud the social networking sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We urge energetic prosecution of child pornography which is closely linked to human trafficking.
It looks more reasonable than Utah's version, although it doesn't seem to recognize any sort of distinction between children being "exposed" to pornography (e.g. at McDonalds) vs. actual child por
Re: (Score:2)
This can't be real. Either you are fibbing or have misunderstood something? Or is Utah really that fucked?
Actually it does look like I fell hook line and sinker for a parody site (and sites repeating it) with that "homogayness" quote! (I fucking hate parody sites.) I was thinking it was separate legislation from SCR 9 but it's not. (After living here for a couple years, nothing surprises me anymore. People asking me "so where do you go to church?" at technical interviews, pairs of women walking down the street wearing funny dresses and pushing pairs of strollers with similar-looking kids, etc.)
SCR 9 is still
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when it's goat porn.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I know, right? If those fuckers won't let me watch porn, I'll just take my "business" to KFC to choke the chicken there instead as it were. That'll show 'em!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I watch the Game of Thrones gay porn parody, "Game of Boners". Interestingly, there is less full frontal male nudity in the porn parody than in the actual HBO show.
Re: (Score:3)
No, I prefer In-N-Out Burger.