[AusNOG] Public Internet Access Policies

[Skeeve Stevens]

As I said in my reply to Mark.. you all are talking about networks and
users, and forgetting the rights of the provider not the risk liability
anymore than they are already.

Think about the customer (the supplier of the wifi) for once and not your
own preconceived notions of how a service should be delivered.


...Skeeve

*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com

Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve

facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;  <http://twitter.com/networkceoau>
linkedin.com/in/skeeve

twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com


The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering

On 8 October 2014 14:37, Karl Auer <kauer at biplane.com.au> wrote:

> On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 17:05 -0700, Andrew Yager wrote:
> > We’re currently developing a public internet access solution for a
> > public space, and one of the things we’re considering is content
> > filtering as part of the solution.
> > [...]
> > - is it a good idea to do this in a public space (think children,
> families, etc all around)
>
> It's not ever a good idea unless you have total (or at very least
> substantial) control over the population that will be using the access.
> Filtering a home network might make sense, but filtering a public
> network never does. For two very simple reasons:
>
> - it doesn't work; and
> - it doesn't work.
>
> If (as I suspect) what you are really trying to do is avoid liability
> when (not if) little Johnny downloads porn[1] then you have to insert a
> liability-shifting shim. They either sign something or they click
> through something. Since kids can't enter contracts, children would be
> unable to use the network without their parents consent. Click-through
> agreements have the same problem with children, and are probably invalid
> for everybody else as well because if push came to shove I suspect the
> click-through wouldn't be worth the paper it wasn't printed on.
>
> And that's just direct usage. What if Little Johnny looks over someone's
> shoulder and happens to see on a screen some currently taboo part of the
> human body, causing awkward questions from Little Johnny and righteous
> indignation in little Johnny's mum? Mum never signed up for that! Better
> fence off the area and put up huge warning signs! Of course,
> unaccompanied children would need to be banned.
>
> Seriously: Filtering public networks is a complete waste of public
> money. Spend the money on a better network instead.
>
> Regards, K.
>
> [1] or sets up a CnC node to tell his botnet to unleash a distributed
> DDoS that takes down the entire eastern seaboard, plunging Melbourne
> into darkness, Sydney into chaos and Brisbane into confusion...
>
> --
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Karl Auer (kauer at biplane.com.au)
> http://www.biplane.com.au/kauer
> http://twitter.com/kauer389
>
> GPG fingerprint: EC67 61E2 C2F6 EB55 884B E129 072B 0AF0 72AA 9882
> Old fingerprint: B862 FB15 FE96 4961 BC62 1A40 6239 1208 9865 5F9A
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AusNOG mailing list
> AusNOG at lists.ausnog.net
> http://lists.ausnog.net/mailman/listinfo/ausnog
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ausnog.net/pipermail/ausnog/attachments/20141010/f603c492/attachment.html>