RSS 2.0 Feed
The Dangers Of Government Provided Wi-Fi
In recent years, several American cities have implemented or announced plans to provide “free” wireless internet access to their citizens. Of course, there really isn’t any such thing as free internet access. Taxes will pay for it somehow. What is often overlooked, though, is the price that might be paid if the government is in charge of access to the Internet.
Witness Culver City, California as reported on CopyOwner:
First, they offer Internet access, but you must agree to “limited†Internet access. And they don’t mean limited hours of the day, limited locations, or a limited amount of time you can be on. No, when they say “limited,†they mean that they will censor access to parts of the Internet. (â€By using this free wireless network you are agreeing and acknowledging you have read and accepted these terms and conditions of use, and this wireless network provides only limited access to the Internet.â€) In other words, they do not offer Internet access at all. As the Dynamic Platform Standards Project points out so well, anyone offering access to a “limited Internet†is engaged in false and deceptive advertising because a “limited Internet†is an oxymoron.
Second, in order to gain the right to enjoy this free, public, non-Internet access, no matter what you read in the Bill of Rights (and the First Amendment, in particular) you must agree that the government may abridge your freedom of speech and you further agree that when it does so (as it promises to do), you will not exercise your right to sue for the violation of your First Amendment rights!
I’m not making this up. Here’s the fine print: “Further, [by using it] you are agreeing to waive any claims, including, but not limited to First Amendment claims, that may arise from the City and Agency’s decision to block access to … matter and websites [of its choosing] through this free wireless network ….â€
Coyote Blog likens it to the Chinese approach to Internet access, and it’s easy to see the comparison. Essentially, the city is reserving to itself the right to decide what its citizens can and cannot see on the Internet. So the price of that free wi-fi connection may turn out to be pretty high when you consider the impact it could have on your First Amendment rights.
So if you don’t agree to waiving your first amendment rights, do you get your tax money back? Talk about adding insult to injury …
Comment by Bret — February 1, 2007 @ 4:26 pmThe problem is, i they DIDN’T block certain sites, they’d run up against various child protection laws; and they’d be sued by some moralists demanding that their tax dollars not go to financing porn etc….
The onlydefense against that is to etiher get people to agree and disclaim on the restrictions, or to disclaim all liability altogher, and because of the child protection laws, they can’t.
Of course the real question should be, whya re they doing this in the first place; but ehy….
Comment by Chris Byrne — February 1, 2007 @ 7:03 pmOh and I should note, I have direct experience in these matters. I’m a security consultant, and I’ve worked on the “free” WiFi systems and the filtering and security systems for them, for several cities.
Comment by Chris Byrne — February 1, 2007 @ 7:04 pm