[ NNSquad ] Re: Mall's Wi-Fi blocks "adult" content

[PK <djc@resiak.org>]

> Sorry guys, I agree with the mall, they don't want to accumulate pervs
> who are sitting on benches in their mall, downloading porn in plain view
> of their customers and any kids that walk by.

This kind of loaded comment loses sight of the difference between legal and 
illegal acts.  People who act illegally in the mall run the risk of arrest 
or other legal action; and if what people do isn't illegal, who are you to 
say they shouldn't do it?  (Incidentally, is there any evidence to support 
your fear?  Such as reliable reports of people who've been successfully 
tried for illegal Internet activities in places with open wifi?  How many?)

If what people are doing is legal, even if it's distasteful to someone 
else, they may do it: that's how we, in our society, are supposed to 
distinguish between what we permit and what we don't.  Some other societies 
don't make that distinction; we call them autocratic.  If you want to limit 
free expression and access to legal services, do that frankly: don't muddy 
the waters with excuses about "pervs in the mall".

That's the slippery slope: approving limitations on behavior because you 
also chance to fear that distasteful -- if quite legal -- things might 
happen.  Each little step leads downhill to another, and you end up with 
frankly, repulsively, repressive measures.  History, including very recent 
history, abounds with examples.

If a provider of open wifi acts as an arbiter of legal use, why not take 
the next step: no Fox at this mall, only MSNBC and Al-Jazeera?  Or the full 
Monty: DPI, no anti-abortion websites, no Skype, no Google, injected ads 
for the mall on every web page?  All map site references resolve to a floor 
plan of the mall?  After all, the free wifi user hasn't paid for access, so 
obviously has no complaint about its outcome!

That might all be perfectly legal within the mall, but it's still the 
slippery slope, and we shouldn't suffer it gladly.  On the contrary.

Pete

   [ Here's a thought experiment.  If a mall offered free telephone
     service for their patrons around the mall, through handsets
     placed at various locations, would similar restrictions be
     acceptable?  If a customer tried to call a local abortion clinic
     or an "adult toys" store from one of those phones, would it be
     reasonable for the system to cut in and say, "I'm sorry, we will
     not complete your call as dialed, since we consider the business
     you are calling to not meet our ethical standards -- CLUNK." ?
     Is this fundamentally different from the Wi-Fi situation?  Even
     more to the point, what if you were trying to call a store in 
     the mall itself when this happened?

         -- Lauren Weinstein
            NNSquad Moderator ]