Starbucks Staffer Claims He Was Fired For Turning Off WiFi To Block Porn Watchers

from the or-you-could-ask-them-to-leave dept

Mon, Oct 4th 2010 7:32am — Mike Masnick

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

Filed Under: porn, wifi
Companies: starbucks

62 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

SomeWhiteGuy, 4 Oct 2010 @ 7:47am

Blacklist
I know a Blacklist isn't always the best way to keep people out of sites, but it's effective for the general public. I assumed that's what they did anyway for a few obvious reasons, one of them being open viewing of pornography. I guess the store manager hasn't figured out all of the settings on the wireless router yet.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:01am

I would think "social moores", backed by the store having the ability to throw people out, and maybe by public indecency laws in extreme cases should be plenty effective to keep public porn watchers under control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:01am

Well of course he was fired. Lots of people sure as hell aren't going to Starbucks for just the coffee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:02am

I'd have done the same thing
I'd have fired the idiot too. Assuming complaints from other patrons; a simple tap on the shoulder should have been sufficient. If the guy displayed a complete lack of tact by ignoring the request then he could have been ejected from the store; as a private business they have every right. They also have every right to turn off the connection but was overkill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:05am

It doesn't make me wonder:
"It does make you wonder why he didn't just ask them to stop surfing porn." -- Really? Confront numerous people over a sensitive point, thereby also raising it to public? A low-level employee to do so? One who doesn't have health insurance in case he gets teeth knocked out in response?

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 thread ]
Designerfx (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:10am

Re: Blacklist
yup.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:11am

Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
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.

Problem solved. Now, time for another Pumpkin Spice Latte....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:12am

and how exactly would you
be able to tell which patron was surfing the porn? were they even actually in the store? apartments nearby perhaps?

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 thread ]
Joel Coehoorn, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:14am

Non-issue
As a network administrator, I'm totally okay with this. You set up expensive monitoring systems to make sure your branch systems stay online, and someone just goes and pulls the plug. The result is a trouble ticket that might mean dispatching a tech to the location, all of which costs the business money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A Dan (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:16am

Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
I remember there was a topless coffee shop in Vassalboro Maine until it got burned down. The idiot owner didn't have insurance to cover such things. I don't think they obeyed your "only attractive baristas" suggestion, but I never visited to find out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:18am

Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
"I don't think they obeyed your "only attractive baristas" suggestion, but I never visited to find out."

Ugh, that could be the very antithesis of a successful business model if they didn't....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:24am

No one implied anything about stopping porn surfing in general, only in public, where it is already against the law. If you don't like it, you can petition to be allowed to watch porn in places where families with children are trying to drink their coffee if you like.

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 thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:24am

Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
No one implied anything about stopping porn surfing in general, only in public, where it is already against the law. If you don't like it, you can petition to be allowed to watch porn in places where families with children are trying to drink their coffee if you like.

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 thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:26am

Re:
"Haven't you ever worked at a fast food restaurant?"

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 thread ]
chris (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:31am

Re: and how exactly would you
be able to tell which patron was surfing the porn? were they even actually in the store? apartments nearby perhaps?

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 thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:35am

Re: 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...."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:37am

Re: Non-issue
So the answer is to fire them? WTF? Surely a warning/talk to would suffice.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Irving, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:43am

Just ask them to stop?
Makes me wonder why he considered people's viewing preferences to be his concern.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:44am

Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
"One who doesn't have health insurance in case he gets teeth knocked out in response?"
"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 thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:46am

Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
@crade: "No one implied anything about stopping porn surfing in general" -- Neither did I.

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 thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:46am

Re: and how exactly would you
From the linked article:
"after a number of complaints from customers"

You ask the customer raising the complaint, thats how.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:55am

Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
@ Dark Helmet: Did you just incidentally click on that specific "reply" button soon as you came up with a bit of what you mistake for wit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:00am

Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Nope, was trying to take your premise of taking the responsibility for stopping porn surfers out of employee's hands and run with it.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:07am

Re: Blacklist
how dare he turn off the free wifi.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vidiot (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:08am

Re: I'd have done the same thing
While private businesses can eject the porn crowd if they choose, it's different in public libraries, which fight desperately -- sometimes against the town fathers -- to keep browsing unfiltered. The skin-surfers are lined up every day at our local library, using the public computers... one of the few in the area to offer unrestricted use to cardholders and non-residents alike. According to policy, staff can only approach when other patrons complain. And they have yet to successfully press a public lewdness charge for patrons who suddenly develop an itch in their pants pocket...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowardly Annon, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:09am

Reading the article over at the Consumerist, it says the guy asked his supervisor and called his manager to ask how to deal with the situation. Why didn't THEY go over and ask the idiots to leave?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:10am

Re: Just ask them to stop?
He said they were kids there, according to some other news site.

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 thread ]
hmm, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:12am

well
Darkhelmet wrote:
-------------------------------
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 thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
I have (and do of course) worked for a living, but I generally just worry about my own actions, and find no need for resentment. When I felt I was worth more than they were paying me, I just went and got a better job. If I couldn't find a better job, then I wasn't worth more than they were paying me.

"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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:14am

WORD
never 'screw' the bosses viewing time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:19am

Re:
I think the social mores have been eroded over time, but the second option is the only one needed. If someone is doing something in your store that you don't like, ask them to leave. They don't, call the police.

Sorry, so sympathy for the barista.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TJ, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:26am

Re: Non-issue
Really, you must not be a good network admin. Any network Admin would not worry about a router being turned off. A helpdesk could figure that out without the need to escalate it to your "level", But if it did make it to you a simple is the router powered on? would suffice. I personally like when my user do a little thinking to help protect the network. Often porn sites come with other nasties you don't want floating on your network. I think they should have asked the person in and asked why they shut it down. Gave the person options if it happens again and let it go at that. Sometimes a person is forced to make a decision at a time when management has not given them any clear guidance on what to do in a situation. they are force to do what they think is best for the company and it should not result in firing. What did they do in this circumstance that was so awful? Is the tech guaranteed? They may offer WIFI, but it is like any tech it is never guaranteed way to many factors. Outages happen. If people get upset they can go buy there own WIFI.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:40am

Use Open DNS to block such sites!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
interval (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:43am

Re: Re: I'd have done the same thing
Ok, I hear ya... but what do libraries have to do with anything? Is starbucks encroaching on public libraries too? The bastards...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:45am

Open DNS could resolve this really easily. Change their router to use Open DNS entries, and it's a done deal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 9:49am

Hmph
I would have fired the passive-aggressive twerp too. Inconvenience paying customers for a handful watching porn? Go up to them and say, "Sir, if you do not stop looking at the jubblies on your laptop, I will have to ask you to leave." You can be quiet about it.

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 thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Oct 2010 @ 10:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Since you admit to being a mere economic unit, I'll regard you as such.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 4 Oct 2010 @ 10:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Okay, we've established that you regard employees are mere objects for your amusement. Probably your first if not only thought. -- Perhaps one day you'll grasp that The Rich regard *you* as an expendable object for *their* pleasure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 10:29am

Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Starbucks provides health insurance even to their part-time employees. One of the few places that do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lostalaska (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 10:33am

The new tagline could be...
Topless waitresses and bottomless cups of coffee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 10:51am

Re: Re: Blacklist
1) Most Ad Blocking also blocks known newspaper ads (that some might want to read)
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 thread ]
Danny, 4 Oct 2010 @ 11:06am

more to the story?
Methinks there is more to the story that this guy is reporting on the Starbucks blog (as related in the Consumerist.)

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 thread ]
ITGuru, 4 Oct 2010 @ 11:07am

Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Ahh ... but he does get health insurance if he works 20 hours a week. One of the perks of working at the bux.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 11:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
hehe, you said "unit".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fuchsia, 4 Oct 2010 @ 11:08am

Re:
The employee was a he not a she. Way to gender essentialise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
crade (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 11:14am

Re: Re:
Sorry, I couldn't find his gender and usually when I am unsure I use female, because I have never known guys to complain about such things, and using unknown gender pronouns gets really anoying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 1:18pm

Why people assume, someone was a client inside starbucks?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 2:37pm

Re: Re: Re: Blacklist
2) That would be the business' definition of porn. You are using their wifi, and sitting in their property. Libraries don't let you look at porn, either, and they're public property.
3) I believe s/he meant warez sites, which are not necessarily legal. Most times they aren't.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Oct 2010 @ 2:46pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Wow. Dude, get a sense of humor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tom Landry (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 5:34pm

Unless guys were actively jacking in front of their laptops or had no headphones I dont see why its the business of some effete "Barista" (aka glorified coffee pot slinger) to be inspecting what people are watching.

Just shut your mouth and do your job, coffee boy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:57pm

Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
if you hire only attractive baristas and make them work naked

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/24/grab-n-go-bikini-baristas_n_298700.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 4 Oct 2010 @ 8:59pm

Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
Oops, sorry, the video doesn't work. Here's a copy on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFjvo1-K4k
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 5 Oct 2010 @ 10:15am

The hostility here directed toward employees is typical.
Of kiss up, kick down, control freaks. No "tact" is to be exercised in dealing with a mere *employee*, eh? Just fire 'em at least reason: they're replaceable economic units, not people. And $10 an hour is plenty enough pay to risk physical violence. A couple even want the employees to be naked. What a revealing item this turned out to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gregg L. DesElms (profile), 5 Oct 2010 @ 11:35am

What the...
Why are we even having this discussion?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Oct 2010 @ 2:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't make me wonder:
" little less ugly than the wives of the men"
or teenagers (with fake id`s if there was a ban) who only have 2d
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Xan Gordon, 10 Oct 2010 @ 10:43am

RTFA
I actually DID ask them to leave. They refused. My only options were to turn off the wi-fi or call the police. Since turning off the wi-fi wasn't against the rules, and police presence is bad for business, so I figured I picked the easy way out.

Read the article and its comments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 12 Oct 2010 @ 5:21am

Well, Mike, another one you got blatantly wrong.
======= start paste ========

"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 thread ]
Patricia Seagrove, 20 Nov 2010 @ 3:11pm

I just get tired of having to deal with it
I don't blame the guy at all. I think having to work in an environment like that would really suck. I work in a place where porn surfing is allowed and I personally find it offensive. What's worse is people save stuff for buddies that take their place, so if I walk up to a machine to work on it, I end up "sharing" the experience. I'm always worried some kid will get to the computer before I do. I've been able to complain that it's a hostile work environment and get some results
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wwss, 14 Apr 2013 @ 4:45pm

Re: Blacklist
aaaa
[ link to this | view in thread ]
out_of_the_blue, 12 Sep 2013 @ 8:59pm

Re: Well, Mike, another one you got blatantly wrong.
YOT, one-percenter Ivy League Mike just left it. One of his few consistent traits, as I've mentioned now and then, is disregard for laborers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Henry Delforn, 14 Oct 2013 @ 8:04am

Starbucks WiFi is blocking Cuba
Starbucks WiFi is blocking all websites in Cuba. Anything ending with .cu is blocked ("This page can't be displayed").

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Feb 2014 @ 5:08am

Response to: crade on Oct 4th, 2010 @ 8:01am
[ link to this | view in thread ]