Starbucks Staffer Claims He Was Fired For Turning Off WiFi To Block Porn Watchers
from the or-you-could-ask-them-to-leave dept
One of the common complaints we heard in the early days of "free WiFi" in cafes, restaurants and libraries was the claim that people would "just use it to view porn." It seemed like an odd claim, because how many people really want to display to the world their porn viewing habits? There's a reason why porn magazines were delivered in brown paper wrappings. However, I'm sure that there will always be some people who do use it that way. Apparently some of them were at a Starbucks recently, and an exasperated barista decided the best response was to pull the plug on the WiFi -- an act for which he claims he was fired. Indeed. It does make you wonder why he didn't just ask them to stop surfing porn.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Blacklist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blacklist
filters should be basically mandatory if this isn't wifi for a home environment.
block a: ads, b: porn and c: hacking sites. The rest is not your issue, but if people manage to look at child porn on a starbucks wifi there will be it's own issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Blacklist
2) Who's definition of Porn ?
3) Hacking sites are great places to get help with code at times, and not illegal anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Blacklist
3) I believe s/he meant warez sites, which are not necessarily legal. Most times they aren't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blacklist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Blacklist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry, so sympathy for the barista.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: crade on Oct 4th, 2010 @ 8:01am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd have done the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'd have done the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'd have done the same thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't make me wonder:
What an insulated world you live in. You imply that it's desirable to stop porn surfing, and that it's the duty of some poorly-paid peon to take the risk of doing so. -- And if the "barista" then "claims" he was fired for doing so, no sympathy for him over management.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Problem solved. Now, time for another Pumpkin Spice Latte....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Ugh, that could be the very antithesis of a successful business model if they didn't....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
They could have been trying to attract an alternate life style crowd. Or perhaps they were betting on the fact that the waitresses were just a little less ugly than the wives of the men that were the targeted population segment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
or teenagers (with fake id`s if there was a ban) who only have 2d
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
And who said anything about mistakened wit? I want my Pumpkin Spice Latte served to me by a naked hottie....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The new tagline could be...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/grab-n-go-bikini-baristas_n_298700.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFjvo1-K4k
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
As for the employee not wanting to deal with the situation because "it isn't her job" to ensure the the store is a safe and decent environment for customers (or whatever), as with any situation she doesn't want to deal with she calls her supervisor or failing that, the cops I suppose.
Employees need to deal with disorderlies once in a while. The individual could just as easily be reading a porn magazine instead of using the internet, or yelling racist comments to other customers, or whatever. Haven't you ever worked at a fast food restaurant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
And: No, *managers* need to deal with anything delicate. Employers expect far more responsibility and skills from the lowest and newest employees than they're willing to pay for. Of course, managers are also exploited by *owners*. Look who makes out in that chain: most of the income, none of the hassle or physical risks.
Ensuring a society is "safe and decent" is a duty we all hold in common, and those benefitting most from such society should be held to account MORE. See my point there? Haven't you ever *worked* for a living so that you at least resent those who *only* scrape off the excess value of your labor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
"No, *managers* need to deal with anything delicate"
Well, not neccessarily, the managers aren't always there, and it usually isn't in their "official duties" to be available 24/7 either, but they should have a policy set up that the employees are comfortable with when the manager is not in the store. This might involve the acting supervisor calling the manager, or calling mall security or the authorities, or whatever. I was acting supervisor at A&W, it isn't anything special, it's just something like "if anything happens that you don't feel comfortable dealing with, call this number" or somesuch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
"it's the duty of some poorly-paid peon"
I'm not sure what Starbucks you've been to but they usually start at $10 an hour and they are offered health insurance and a 401(K) with limited matching.
Granted $10 an hour isn't amazing but there are worse jobs that pay less.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and how exactly would you
Should he have gone around and accused those people at random for porn surfing. I'd imagine that would have got him fired too...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and how exactly would you
the only reason to take action would be due to a customer complaint. if customers are complaining, then the infraction must be happening in plain view of customers, in which case, you just look around and see who has porn up on their screen.
if someone was surfing for porn in their apartment, how would that have come to the barista's attention?
if the barista was using a network tool to snoop on others, then he/she probably deserved to be fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: and how exactly would you
"after a number of complaints from customers"
You ask the customer raising the complaint, thats how.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Non-issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Non-issue
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for the employee not wanting to deal with the situation because "it isn't her job" to ensure the the store is a safe and decent environment for customers (or whatever), as with any situation she doesn't want to deal with she calls her supervisor or failing that, the cops I suppose.
Employees need to deal with disorderlies once in a while. The individual could just as easily be reading a porn magazine instead of using the internet, or yelling racist comments to other customers, or whatever. Haven't you ever worked at a fast food restaurant?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, but I have worked in retail when I was in high school, and we saw similar situations. A small number of people will always try to take advantage of the nice extras a company does for its customers. I fail to see how cutting all customers off from one of those extras because of the actions of those few is ever the right decision....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ask them to stop?
Is this a case of "I don't like pornography, so I don't want you to be able to view it"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just ask them to stop?
The people were watching porn, with the sound on (no headphones). It was affecting other customers.
Yes, he should have called the cops and let the freaks be marked as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
It's one thing to watch porn, but to do so in a public place where kids are present? That seems illegal to me.
So yeah, he should have called the cops... but he was doing what he thought was best for the other customers. (I don't even think the porn viewers were buying anything, from what I've read.) I don't see why he should have been fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As a lowly grunt, I don't see why it was his job to handle this situation. Frankly, depending on the number of people, I probably would have done the same thing. I'm pretty sure he wasn't paid enough money to confront those guys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more to the story?
As stated above: he claims to have talked to his supervisor and manager over days. So, this wasn't a one time thing quick decision. The supervisor and manager knew what was going on and evaluated the situation as one where the wifi should stay on.
Presumably, they had a sense of the appropriate response -- and he was acting independent of their sense. I suspect this is what got him fired.
Perhaps what he considered porn, they didn't? One person's Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition in another person's Gomorrah, after all.
Perhaps it was something else. What is clear is that he wasn't taking direction from management very effectively. Methinks that's probably what got him fired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well
-------------------------------
Why can't companies be more creative? Obviously, if you hire only attractive baristas and make them work naked, there will be no reason to use their internet connection for surfing porn.
-------------------------------
Surely naked UGLY baristas will stop people using porn just as well...if only from a hideous sense of disgust.
Sorry folks, but unless each of you stumps up the cash for another coffee within the next 5min, Hairy Steve will be taking another item of clothing off........
So, how did you stir my latte, you haven't got a spoon........
Oh yes and naked barista + boiling hot steam = hilarious accident waiting to happen.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WORD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmph
He shouldn't have called the cops because they were watching porn in public; he should have called the cops because they were no longer welcome in the establishment. This doesn't have to be a "omg they will be branded sex offenders for life!" deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WiFi don't stop at the doors, you could be sitting in a car outside and be using that, just like hackers and law enforcement do all the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just shut your mouth and do your job, coffee boy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The hostility here directed toward employees is typical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...
The Starbucks should simply use OpenDNS, and invoke the porn filter. Simple as that. Shame on it for putting the employee in that position.
The employee should not have been fired, though. He should simply have been told to just report the problem to management. If management allowed it after that, then the employee would have to decide if that's the environment in which he wanted to work; and the employer would need to think about whether it was creating a hostile work environment. It seems to me that employees of a coffee shop should be able to have a reasonable expectation of not having to be exposed to pruient materials in such a workplace.
If I operated a Starbucks (or any similar business), I'd not want people sitting at my tables watching porn, either. If each customer were in his/her own little cubicle or something, with headphones, and no one could casually see what was on their screen... well, then, that might be a different matter.
I hate porn, but there are some free speech issues which trump the morals and so it is what it is. If people want to watch it, fine.
But others in places like coffee shops where children are often present should be able to have the same expectations as employees: That they should not have to be exposed to others' pruient materials and habits in such places. While those watching have the right to so do, others should not be forced to watch them watch it; or to have to avert their eyes to keep from accidentally seeing it, or having their children see it. That, were it MY business, would trump all.
And I won't even venture into how easily I'll bet I could make a case, were I the prosecutor, for sexual abuse of a minor against the adult who neglegently allowed children to see his porn in a public place where there should normally be a reasonable expectation of such a thing not being possible.
This, as earlier-stated, is a silly conversation. Complex legal and/or technical arguments need not be made nor analyzed. This is freshman-level, "logic" and "reasonableness" 101.
______________________________________
Gregg L. DesElms
Napa, California USA
gregg at greggdeselms dot com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RTFA
Read the article and its comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, Mike, another one you got blatantly wrong.
"Jim, I told you the following when I sent you this:
1. I did ask the men to leave. One guy threatened me with physical violence, the others told me that they had the right to be in the store.
2. I told the customers who were using the wi-fi for legitimate reasons what I was going to do. I asked them if it would interrupt anything, I asked if it was okay, they all said to go for it.
I turned the wi-fi back on maybe 10-15 minutes later, after the offending people had left.
The supervisor told me to go ahead and do it.
The employee handbook has a page on "If you want to turn off the wi-fi, here's how" and lists the steps to do so. Otherwise, you can call the Enterprise Help Desk, who will walk you through the steps.
My SM and DM were well aware with the problems with porn and bootlegging at the store.
I had no prior corrective actions, save for a few tardies in early 2009.
Posted by: Xan Gordon"
======== end paste ========
I hadn't even read that until today; I just know how those things go. And I didn't even think of the possible *criminal* liability if a zealous prosecutor found that children were exposed to pornography.
So, Mike, your "claims" and questioning end up looking quite foolish. In your sheltered life, you must never encounter obnoxious people and have to face them. At the very least, you should retract and apologize. But I bet you just leave this to fester, now that it's "old" news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well, Mike, another one you got blatantly wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just get tired of having to deal with it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Starbucks WiFi is blocking Cuba
I've been to several stores and have asked other connected customers, and it is always the same results: "This page can't be displayed".
AT&T is the WiFi provider to Starbucks but they are also provide McDonalds which do not block Cuba, only Starbucks is blocking Cuba.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]