The free service is provided by the Airport (be it government or private, doesn't matter). If you wish to use it, you abide by the rules and restrictions that they put in place for it's use. In this case, it's no porn. Either accept it and use the WiFi, or don't accept it and don't use the free service....
Nothing is stopping anyone from using a Cell-WiFi card to view their porn... I'm also a BIG fan of arresting anyone that is viewing porn in a public area where anyone can walk by and see material that is objectionable to them. When in public, you have to obey public decency laws.... Mike B Michael P. Blanchard Antivirus / Security Engineer, CISSP, GCIH, CCSA-NGX, MCSE Office of Information Security & Risk Management EMC ² Corporation 4400 Computer Dr. Westboro, MA 01580 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jacob Appelbaum Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2008 4:20 PM To: John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [funsec] Say it ain't so: Censorship in America John C. A. Bambenek, GCIH, CISSP wrote: > I'm not saying the implementation was intelligent, I am saying it's not > censorship and quit your whining. It's not the taxpayers job to facilitate > people's pervsities... pay for your own porn. Don't like it, by all means, > hook up your smart phone and get online that way. Or better yet, go > f****ing masturbate at home. Hi, First of all: It's a form of censorship. I'm a regular contributer to Boing Boing (though obviously not an author, just a pal - so to speak) and I take issue with what you're saying. BB isn't porn. You are blocked in the same way, in fact with the same software as users in Syria. They look for certain offensive material and the filter may even alert the authorities. Someone other than the user of the network made the choice to block content. If you argue that it's not the taxpayers job to facilitate peoples' perversions, I'd agree. Stop spending tax payers dollars on this censorship fetish. We have laws and make a crime of showing porn to children. If it happens, arrest the suspect and try them. Stop making new rules that take petty bureaucrats to the level of censor. No one is asking to masturbate - people are saying that it's blocking legitimate uses of the network. Yes, it may include your definition of pornography but your web pages may be my definition of hate speech. Where does this stop? It won't. Smart filter makes a business out of censoring information - all kinds of information. I notice you're a CISSP - how would you like it if all of the CISSP learning material was censored under the category of "hacking tools?" Does that make sense? I don't think so. This kind of filtering is pervasive and a problem. But not because I'm looking for porn but because it's imperfect at the very core of its idea! (This of course says nothing of the fact that you can easily get around any of this bullshit filtering: http://www.boingboing.net/censorroute.html ) Regards, Jacob Appelbaum _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
