4 ms·

The irony is rather that the excuse they provide is that they want to verify people's identity to prevent abuse, but then openly recommend using a fake identity

• sean-duffy 13y ago
  The person in charge wanted to verify people's identities. The store clerk just wants to deal with the customer, his recommendation does not necessarily reflect the opinions of his employer.
• pbhjpbhj 13y ago
  The shop management request a FB identifier as this reduces abuse of their wifi. If that didn't work they probably wouldn't use it - it's basically a way to require work of those who want to log on anonymously, probably enough work that it's easier to just go elsewhere. The shop staff suggested using a faked ID - but they didn't suggest that this should still be the persons only ID for Facebook. That was their solution as an individual. They're not even particularly contrary as practical solutions go - the first policy is presented to the public, it works to reduce wifi abuse. The second "policy" is not presented and works to try and avoid confrontations.
• interpol_p 13y ago
  But the thing is authenticating through Facebook probably does verify the vast majority of their customers' identities. Even if they put big signs out the front of their shop saying : "You can make a fake account and use our WiFi if you care about your privacy." Most people would not go through the trouble of making a fake account and just login with their real account. The fact that the clerk was in conversation with this guy probably put him in the "non troublemaker" category in the clerk's mind anyway. And thus the whole identity verification thing was irrelevant, he was just suggesting a practical solution to the customer's problem.