[AusNOG] Public Internet Access Policies

[Skeeve Stevens]

All good... but it isn't for you or Mark, or anyone else to decide what
someone else thinks their liability is or their policies should be.

I don't support filtering at the carrier/ISP level at all... it should be
up to individual companies to decide whether they want to minimise their
risk - not you to tell them what it should be.  It won't be you being
effected if the media does it's bullshit hype thing due to an incident.


...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 10 October 2014 08:27, John Edwards <jaedwards at gmail.com> wrote:

> (Opinons are my own, not my employers)
>
> Australia's largest free WiFi networks do not filter porn. There was a lot
> of press about this recently:
>
>
> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/392353,canberras-wi-fi-network-to-block-file-sharing-p2p-traffic.aspx
>
> The capability is there, but it's not used. ISP's in Australia already
> block access to some of the nastiest parts of the Internet.
>
> Following on from Mark's comments - Internode has operated a public
> hotspot network for 10 years without content filtering, without incident. I
> can't fathom a scenario where someone viewing porn on public wifi becomes a
> media story. Why isn't this an issue with smartphones on 3G?
>
> Some retail-presence wifi operators have an interesting legal
> interpretation of who owns the data in the air inside of their store. In
> taking this position, they also own the porn - so they have a reason to be
> filtering.
>
> For the carrier argument, there's an exemption to the Telecommunications
> Act for operating WiFi hotspots in a single location:
>
>
> http://www.acma.gov.au/Citizen/Consumer-info/My-connected-home/Wireless-local-area-networks/wireless-lans-in-the-24-ghz-band-faqs
>
> John
>
>
>
>
> On 10 October 2014 06:56, Skeeve Stevens <
> skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
>
>> Are we talking legally here? Perhaps not... but since when has that
>> mattered in the press?
>>
>> My general advice to customers is that with free wifi (public areas), you
>> filter it... Paid wifi (hotels, etc), you leave it alone - unless there is
>> a specific reason.
>>
>> I've built the public wifi internet access for a lot of organisations,
>> but some, especially councils are very susceptible to negative media
>> coverage should someone use their infrastructure to do bad things.  They
>> don't want to be seen as a facilitator for bomb making, hard core porn,
>> violence, etc.
>>
>> My recommendations for any free wifi is the McDonalds model...   The web
>> is all you get (http/https)... anything else is blocked.  Then you are
>> limited by time/volume over a certain period.  If you don't do this, your
>> service WILL be abused without any doubts.
>>
>> I've sat there looking at the logs of the filtering servers at the
>> violations that pop up on public wifi... child porn, hate sites, gambling
>> and so on.
>>
>> To make it clear - I don't care what anyone does on the web, and if
>> people are paying for it, do what you like within the law.
>>
>> But if you are facilitating easy access, and don't want your
>> local/state/national media coming up with headlines like "10 year old looks
>> at porn via council free public wifi" or the many other possible
>> variations, then you best be deciding on your policy for what you filter,
>> and openly stating it in the T&C's... users have no rights when it is a
>> free service as there is no implied understanding of a product.
>>
>>
>> ...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 10 October 2014 00:39, Mark Newton <newton at atdot.dotat.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 8 Oct, 2014, at 11:33 am, Skeeve Stevens <
>>> skeeve+ausnog at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In my view, Filtering in this scenario is less about what the user can
>>> access, but more about the liability on the provider.
>>>
>>> There is no liability on the provider, you're a god-damned carriage
>>> service provider. That's supposed to mean something.
>>>
>>> If you're going to spin that line (especially when it's combined with
>>> product spruiking) then it's reasonable to expect that you'll be able to
>>> provide at least one example of an adverse judgement against a carriage
>>> service provider for content which might have been filtered being accessed
>>> unfiltered over a public access network.
>>>
>>> Whassamadda, you can't?  Dawww.
>>>
>>>   - mark
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/f6537d8e/attachment.html>