Travel Technology - Should "public" WiFi access have filters?

I'm sure this has been asked before, but I'm going to give it a try:

What is your feeling on public access WiFi having blocking software to keep people from seeing porn or other "offensive" sites?

If you are on a plane that offers Wifi, should they using blocking software so that kids on the plane can't accidently/intentionally see offensive content?

What about paid vs free Wifi? Would you expect paid Wifi (on a plane, in a hotel room, etc) to offer unblocked access? Do you think a company, such as a library, Internet cafe or a hotel common area, that offers free WiFi access has the right (or perhaps even a legal obligation) to block sites that would be considered offensive?

There's one simple answer -- NO!

All this nonsense about blocking porn and such is a complete exaggeration. This is a non-problem that is being totally made up by a bunch of prudish Americans.

<f-word> no! :D:D

100% no on stuff like porn. But I do feel that providers have the right to block certain forms of web attacks, spam or other damaging content.

Internet pr0n on an aircraft is a non-issue.

blocking software to keep people from seeing porn or other "offensive" sites?You don't need wifi to view offensive content. As I understand it, pornography can be inserted via CD/DVD, or saved on your computer and viewed at any time, with or without a network connection. But this is all pure speculation on my part. As my father said "I've tried to view pornography, but I don't own a pornograph."

One of the many hats I wear is network engineer for a larger public venue. I don't block a single thing. Just because the medium is electronic doesn't change common decency standards. If the nationally-known musician performing on stage are looking up donkey shows in their dressing rooms (true story and no, I won't divulge who it was), that's their prerogative. If someone's out in the concourse watching porn, that's security/law enforcement's problem.

I see my role solely as to provide the most reliable, secure, fastest connections I can. Content is not my problem. You can buy porn mags at newsstands, you can get Mapplethorpe books at your local library. You can buy a gun at Wal-Mart. There's general community standards of where viewing/having such materials is acceptable and where it is not acceptable.

The ONLY thing I'll ever do something about is child porn. I don't see an acceptable place for that in any context or situation. When those issues come up, I personally will deal with them usually with a law enforcement officer in tow. When confronted, the pervert is usually so embarrassed that they're more than happy to leave the venue and not return.

As for everything else, it's a free-for-all. I do get a chuckle out of this place. They have their own IT department which handles only the corporate side of things and won't touch anything related to events. The corporate network is firewalled, proxied, and logged. Even ESPN.com is blocked. Equally funny is that I've put up extra wireless access points above the offices and employees bring in their own laptops and surf inhibited.

Much like KRSW, I used to be in the business of providing pipes (or, in Ted Steven's parlance, "tubes.").

With that said, there is one thing that I think should be blocked from public connections: outbound port 25 (SMTP). Simply to prohibit spamming. Any reputable e-mail provider will have a way for it's clients to use their SMTP server via secure means.

One of the many hats I wear is network engineer for a larger public venue. I don't block a single thing.

So you monitor but don't block? That's an interesting approach.

Blocking TCP 25 is an interesting idea and there are many cases where it would be helpful, but it would take a lot of work to change all the client configurations over to move things to a different port/authentication scheme. That would have a pretty big price tag in soft costs (help desk calls, etc.), and it will only stem the spam flow a tiny bit. Not really worth it, IMHO.

Content filters? No. As others have pointed out, offensive content can be stored on the computer and viewed. If it's necessary to prevent others from being offended, the answer is not a network filter, but an enforced policy against viewing it.

Depending on the technology, bandwidth filters may be necessary to ensure sufficient bandwidth for all, so your movie download doesn't slow my email access.

And I welcome filters blocking VOIP and other voice technologies in what should be a quiet environment (library, airplane).

As my handle indicates, I spend a lot of time in Dubai and used to live there. The UAE heavily censors the internet and I really vote for a "no" on this one. I think people should respect other people, but these blocking programs block too much stuff by accident. For example, the UAE's filters stopped me from reading about the Duke/Lacross rape trial. Breast cancer and even cites associated with lawyers who handled criminal defense (e.g. they talked about sex and drugs) were blocked. It should be noted that Dubai's censorship was implemented and managed by a major US computer company. This wasn't a local mismanagement issue.

I don't mind VOIP blocks, but wish their was a way to SMS freely while blocking voice.

I believe the holder of the circuit has the right to block or not block whatever they feel is appropriate.

Saying that I am against anybody deciding what is and is not a proper site to visit, but do understand and respect their right to do so.

You don't need wifi to view offensive content. As I understand it, pornography can be inserted via CD/DVD, or saved on your computer and viewed at any time, with or without a network connectionYou can also bring a book or magazine that someone might find offensive and read that. I'd bet that those who shudder at the mere thought of porn on planes never bothered to stop at the airport newsstand where things like :eek: Playboy :eek: are sold. What about e-books? What if someone reads a steamy sentence off your laptop or book and becomes aroused? :confused: Surely we can't have that either, now can we? That problem has been around for quite some time yet we've heard boo about it.

This is a non-problem, folks.

Heck, not too long ago I saw some naked breasts one row up across the aisle from me on the IFE screen.

Never did figure out which movie it was, LOL.

VPN renders content filtering ineffective. So what's the point of even discussing it ?

As my handle indicates, I spend a lot of time in Dubai and used to live there. The UAE heavily censors the internet and I really vote for a "no" on this one. I think people should respect other people, but these blocking programs block too much stuff by accident. For example, the UAE's filters stopped me from reading about the Duke/Lacross rape trial. Breast cancer and even cites associated with lawyers who handled criminal defense (e.g. they talked about sex and drugs) were blocked. It should be noted that Dubai's censorship was implemented and managed by a major US computer company. This wasn't a local mismanagement issue..

You need to get something like this http://www.surfbouncer.com/

I don't mind VOIP blocks, but wish their was a way to SMS freely while blocking voice.

There are plenty of sites that will let you SMS over a web link.

I believe the holder of the circuit has the right to block or not block whatever they feel is appropriate.

Saying that I am against anybody deciding what is and is not a proper site to visit, but do understand and respect their right to do so.

Agreed. The problem only arises if it's a wifi system that you need to pay for by the hour or whatever and is advertised as "wireless internet" or some such that makes you part with your money and then find out you can't call through VOIP or view porn.

So you monitor but don't block? That's an interesting approach.

Blocking TCP 25 is an interesting idea and there are many cases where it would be helpful, but it would take a lot of work to change all the client configurations over to move things to a different port/authentication scheme. That would have a pretty big price tag in soft costs (help desk calls, etc.), and it will only stem the spam flow a tiny bit. Not really worth it, IMHO.

"monitor" is a very loose term. I don't think I've touched that network in >190 days now. If there's excessive bandwidth usage or excessive requests of a particular type (say someone tries to send 25 messages via SMTP in 10 minutes), or unusual activity, the system sends me an e-mail and automatically reacts/readjusts. I've designed the network its routers/servers to have a bit of artificial intelligence and automated the management/maintenance tasks. The whole goal was to have a network that could function without human intervention no matter what. From hung wireless access points to hurricanes, the system's managed to fend for itself.

I do run transparent proxies on 25, 80, and 113. Spam filtering/virus scanning on both inbound & outbound e-mail, caching proxy on 80, 8080 (and standard variants) for speed/bandwidth.

Several countries are requiring VPN access to be licensed. Bahrain is one. Sooner or later they will still white listing them.

Several countries are requiring VPN access to be licensed. Bahrain is one. Sooner or later they will still white listing them.

That's as long as they realise it's a VPN connection. Steganography will take care of that. If it's made by man, it can and will be broken/defeated by man.