Why I don't eat at Panera Bread: Free WiFi ain't always free

A client contacted me recently about problems he was having sending email and accessing sites while using the free WiFi service at a local Panera Bread. Doing some research and replicating the problem I was able to determine that Panera Bread was filtering and blocking user’s content. A quick Google search confimed this and Panera Bread doesn't deny it in their terms of use, (which admittedly, nobody reads.)

The first response would be that a company providing a free service has the right to determine the parameters with which that service can be used. If Panera Bread doesn't want people surfing porn or downloading music in their cafes then that is their right. I would agree that it may be disruptive or not in keeping with their image to have people sitting at tables drinking coffee watching porn in full view of other patrons. I think we can all see that as a problem especially if the possibility exists that those patrons may include children.

The problem comes in when the filters are numerous and arbitrary. Let first review how filters work. The filtering mechanism sits between the patron and the Internet. When the patron asks for something, the filter looks at the request, compares it to a predetermined list of blocked sites or criteria, and then either presents or blocks the content. Companies that purchase or employ filtering rarely have company wide focus groups to discuss content so the job of deciding either falls to a select few or is outsourced. What this means is that the internet habits of thousands of customers are probably decided by a few or even a one. In this case SonicWALL a company that sells firewall solutions. SonicWALL generates their own list of objectionable sites based on their own undisclosed criteria.

I know at this point you are still thinking that we are talking about porn and if that was the case the parameters would be fairly cut and dried. Well, we are not talking porn. Not surprisingly in this day and age we are talking politics. SonicWALL doesn't make public a list of blocked sites, they do provide a form to request an appeal if you think that your site has been unfairly labeled, and label they do.

It seems that SonicWALL (though trial and error) has been found to deem objectionable more than just "Pornography, hate and violence sites." No it seems that SonicWALL doesn't seem to like sites that fall out of mainstream religion or media. Examples would be news digest sites such as Fark.com, sites for alternative lifestyles and a lot of editorial and review sites. ( They also block access to AOL mail ut of fear that someone may send a message viewed as Spam and get them blacklisted. ) One can see why surfing porn can cause the potential for inadvertent shoulder surfing, but reading an editorial on salon.com from 3 tables away?

What it really boils down to for me is a question of liability; that is, why would Panera want liability? Twelve years ago I started installing my first corporate networks with desktop Internet access for employees. The issue we ran into then was whether different ISPs (internet providers) would filter or not filter the traffic. It was true then, and still holds true now that most Internet providers do not filter content because applying any limitations at all implies responsibility for all content. If you are going to actively block site A and not site B the implication is that site B is approved. That would then allow one to hold the ISP responsible for objectionable content transmitted on their network. If they are filtering, then they actively chose to allow that specific content.

ISPs realized that it was better to keep the traffic unrestricted and unfiltered, as once you establish yourself as the traffic cop; you open yourself up to liability. Panera Bread would seem to have more at risk by filtering, than by not filtering. However in this case I feel it isn't a question of protecting the public, but controlling in access to content that they may not agree with.

At this point Panera seems to be only blocking or allowing access and not reading your email or tracking your habits. I don't want to scare anyone off of free wireless, (I think Open WIFI is an example of the equalizing power of the Internet.) Just realize that free can come with a price sometimes and that price may be your right to decide as an adult, what you feel is appropriate for you to read. What do you think?