Georgiapacking.org banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Yukon Cornelius
Joined
·
11,695 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Sitting at a public hospitals can’t get to gpdo with WiFi turned on. Exactly how do public hospitals limit free speech by denying access to websites??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
928 Posts
As the CIO of a public hospital, to get on my guest network you accept terms/conditions for use. I also have the ability to block anything I want. It has nothing to do with what I get "called on", but I would reasonably consider any requests to unblock something I've blocked.

Now, with that said, I don't have such silly restrictions on sites such as GPDO, and I wouldn't unless my CEO told me to.
 

·
Yukon Cornelius
Joined
·
11,695 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
But how do you stifle free speech at all? How are you setting terms of service on free speech? The 1st amendment applies to a public hospital including their WiFi connections thru the 14th amendment.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
27,996 Posts
A public hospital cannot just block whatever sites it wants, even if it has written down rules that say it can and has published those rules.
The first amendment's freedom of expression (and, I would add freedom of virtual association) clause does not allow that type of censorship .
If your public hospital has a Wi-Fi network for public use (or should I say use by your patients, staff, and families / visitors to patients)
then it better be available to all of them to peruse whatever websites they want....
except to the extent that it is necessary to protect the security of the network, to prevent crimes from being committed using your network, or to prevent an imminent and very real breach of the peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UtiPossidetis

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,299 Posts
As long as they are not blocking the use of VPN's, this is another reason to use one. If they are blocking VPN's, don't use their wifi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
532 Posts
The ACLU is on the case.

Currently they're suing the American Library Association for blocking sites, but public hospitals are also in their crosshairs.

DH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,328 Posts
It is probably a “their network their rules” situation. Unless you have very specific legal code that governs, they don’t fit an ISP definition. Never assume public WiFi and free internet are the same thing.

From a technical perspective, I’d put 90% chance of relying on a 3rd party or hosted service doing the filtering and only 10% that it’s even a local decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
An excuse I've heard elsewhere (Amtrak) is that certain sites are too bandwidth-intensive. I call BS. I don't disagree that some sites hog bandwidth, and a user certainly shouldn't expect to be able to stream a movie in HD on public WiFi. But that's where per-connection bandwidth throttling comes in. Any modern wireless device can do it, and if it can't, then it's a piece of garbage. That's a true level-playing field way of ensuring fair and equal access without even a hint of censorship. Frankly, if there's literally one user on the WiFi, then there's no reason not to let them use the maximum capacity. With modern quality of service if one user is just occasionally hitting a few basic webpages, and the other user is streaming, there still shouldn't be an issue. Sure it gets more complex when you add more users all trying to access different sites, but I don't write that stuff, just implement it!
 

·
Yukon Cornelius
Joined
·
11,695 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
I’m sure gpdo uses minimal bandwidth it’s probably just a blanket ban on this format because it deals with weapons
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,328 Posts
An excuse I've heard elsewhere (Amtrak) is that certain sites are too bandwidth-intensive. I call BS. I don't disagree that some sites hog bandwidth, and a user certainly shouldn't expect to be able to stream a movie in HD on public WiFi. But that's where per-connection bandwidth throttling comes in. Any modern wireless device can do it, and if it can't, then it's a piece of garbage. That's a true level-playing field way of ensuring fair and equal access without even a hint of censorship. Frankly, if there's literally one user on the WiFi, then there's no reason not to let them use the maximum capacity. With modern quality of service if one user is just occasionally hitting a few basic webpages, and the other user is streaming, there still shouldn't be an issue. Sure it gets more complex when you add more users all trying to access different sites, but I don't write that stuff, just implement it!
Paying for pipe and paying for usage are 2 different buckets. A 3/4" water pipe is cheap but the billed usage is expensive if it runs wide open for 30 days. The same thing applies to internet access and usage.

Likely some contractor or admin with an also-your-job situation used a cheap 3rd party filtering setup that has drugs/nudity/violence filters set and GPDO talks about guns, therefore GPDO is about violence, so blocked. Poking around in settings for a bit and using some tools on the internet could probably reveal the proxy provider and give more rabbit trails to run. If one got GPDO removed from the 3rd party list, it would be unblocked in hundreds or thousands of locations until some network admin at a high school resubmits it under the violence tag.

Another option is the hospital network is blocked for spamming web forums at a forum aggregator somewhere.
 

·
Lawyer and Gun Activist
Joined
·
27,996 Posts
It is probably a "their network their rules" situation. Unless you have very specific legal code ...
Even if a public building's WiFi Network is not designated as a public forum (where the government regularly allows people to engage in expressive activity to communicate ideas of public importance)
that doesn't mean the government has a free hand to say what subjects you were allowed to speak about and which ones you are not!

Content-based censorship is almost always forbidden however a non-public forum could have reasonable restrictions on time place and manner but not content of speech (unless the content itself is clearly criminal or disruptive disruptive.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Deepocean

·
American
Joined
·
3,230 Posts
It's for the children! And the comment above by the CIO indicates that its "his" network. Problem is, its not - its the citizens property administered by him and his CEO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: phantoms

·
Registered
Joined
·
928 Posts
It's for the children! And the comment above by the CIO indicates that its "his" network. Problem is, its not - its the citizens property administered by him and his CEO.
Fair - I will concede your technical point on that.

And to clarify, I'm not blocking anything at my location.
 

·
American
Joined
·
3,230 Posts
Fair - I will concede your technical point on that.

And to clarify, I'm not blocking anything at my location.
I congratulate you on that. Unfortunately, too many public employees really don't understand that its not theirs to do with as they wish or as they are directed by their superior.
 

·
Seasteading Aficionado
Joined
·
44,887 Posts
Guns are evil, unless in the hands of cops, don't you know?
 

·
Custom User Title
Joined
·
1,973 Posts
I may be mistaken, but I have always thought that those "public" WiFi's come configured in that way from the manufacturer, and nobody cares about changing the settings.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top