[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Alex Neuman <alex at nkpanama dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Configuracion wireless en monowall
 Date:  Wed, 24 May 2006 12:43:26 -0500
Rolf Kutz wrote:
>
>
> That would be my (the customers) problem, not the
> hotels.
>
>   
I think it would be the hotel's problem if their ISP blocks them because 
of abuse perpetrated by guests.
>> audit trail. People are free to offer services as they please, just as 
>> clients are free to purchase/use said services *if* they choose to. 
>> That's one of the uses of the captive portal page: to explain to your 
>> users what is or is not allowed on *your* network, which is *yours*, and 
>> not *theirs*. They are your *guests* and they *should* behave as such.
>>     
>
> They might be *customers* who pay for the service
>
>   
And since they are in fact customers you can inform them through the 
captive portal page about what your particular terms are for the service 
you are providing, which they are free to decide whether to use or not.
>> That's the beauty of it. You *choose* to go wherever you want to go or 
>> not depending on whether or not they give the service you want to receive.
>>
>> In some countries there is a "due diligence" clause that requires 

>> license and/or permit, to install filters that will block any webpages 
>> that explictly declare they are for adults only if minors are allowed 
>> entrance and/or provide some basic protection. They won't fine you if a 
>>     
>
> Those filters often "protect" people from
> websites that could educate them about health,
> gender or racial discrimination, the pros and
> cons of web filters and many more.
>
>   
Which is why if they believe in freedom those same people will exercise 
their right to choose a provider that doesn't filter their connection in 
any way; the same way providers can freely choose to charge more for 
such a connection (or less for a "protected" one, to use your term). If 
they are entrepreneurial in nature they might even provide that choice 
where there is none.
>> "closing specific ports" method of firewalling. You will find a lot of 
>> people agree that it's more practical to only open your firewall to 
>> traffic you actually *want* and *need* and not the other way around.
>>     
>
> I agree with the later, but if you offer a service
> like Internet access you can hardly know what
> traffic you need. That's one thing stateful
> firewalling is for.
>
>   
Again, it's not a matter of knowing, it's a basic supply and demand 
issue. You offer specific services which you provide details about in 
your captive portal page; you may even provide a link that people can 
follow in order to make suggestions - or give them a number to call for 
"feature requests". If you notice many of your users are requesting 
access to a specific service, you may choose to add it or not depending 
on your particular point of view, and charge (or not) accordingly.
>> Oh, and by the way, the "million flies can't be wrong" argument is 
>> similar to the "straw man" logical fallacy; it doesn't really refute the 
>>     
>
> It was a replication to your own "straw man". Mind
> if I quote you again:
>
> | This isn't as crazy as it sounds. I've set up several                         
> | hotels/resorts/golf clubs like this, and I've been to quite a few here        
> | and all over the world that do the same thing.
>
>   
Which is about the same as the "castration prevents rape" setup where 
you make an extreme comparison then equate the value of the other 
person's argument to the value of the extreme comparison (which I don't 
believe completely applies in this particular case, but that's just me). 
My basic point has always been about choice. I believe the provider has 
as much right to choose what services to offer and in what manner to 
provide them as the customer has the right to choose whether or not to 
use the services in this manner.

While we both agree that there are many ways a user can abuse the 
provider's good faith and cause harm to others which would then be 
attributed to the provider, we seem to disagree in what the provider's 
recourse regarding the prevention of said harm is. You believe services 
provided should be completely unfiltered, and I agree there are 
situations like some people have mentioned in this thread where this can 
be done: I believe they should be sandboxed except for certain 
scenarios. Both approaches have their pros and cons and both can be 
successfully applied in many different situations - without being as 
dramatic as mass castrations :-)
>> Have a great day...
>>     
>
> U2, Rolf
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>