I don't really see this as a problem (violations of the AUP should be grounds for termination of service), HOWEVER (that is a *big* however), two things need to be in place before this should be reasonably enforceable (and some of these elements are pretty easy to do, and may be already done):

[These are in no particular order]

1. 1. ISP (COX in this case) with said AUP needs to give basic education to their customers on signup/setup for things like WiFi security - a simple "to let you know unsecured WiFi isn't allowed, this is what you need to do to get a secured WiFi . Alternatively, for $ we will make sure it is setup correctly for you" (LET ME STRESS: the "setup for you" should be optional, perhaps a waiver stating "I understand" if you don't have them set it up for you.)
2. 2. *** MOST IMPORTANT *** The ISP (COX) cannot be the EXCLUSIVE provider for the residence (Yes, I am looking at you, apartment complex I live in. I have NO option but COX, meaning that since I need Internet for my Job, I could be screwed if this happened. This typically isn't an issue for me, since I am relatively secure in my knowledge on how to setup networks/WiFi/etc).

3. There might need to be a couple other things, but, these two stood out to me as almost requirements at this point (with policies like COX has).

Honestly, I think that a lot of people would do the temporary friending (well in the places that don't allow cell phones with cameras in the court houses...and every cell phone pretty much has a camera in it these days). What I find to be amazing is that people have little regard for personal privacy when it comes to the social networking sites (or just don't understand what it really means to them -- or worse don't care).

This wouldn't work for me, I'm content with my kindle or other e-reader (or a real book) when having to sit and wait. I find it offensive that 'Facebook' among other things can be used during jury selection. While I can understand that the attorneys and the courts want the best representation of unbiased people, I think this will turn into abuse of the system on both sides.

I also would argue that there is nothing "temporary" about friending the office. My guess would be that they will start siphoning down your details and storing them for later. If this is to be permissible, there needs to be strict retention policies set forth by the court on the user data (and this should probably be evaluated in a more formal way).

Granted I didn't read TFA. I should probably do so before posting. But in either case, it worries me that people have so little regard for the data they post online and what is done with it. While I am personally careful to post things that I know I don't mind EVERYONE knowing, I am probably in the minority.

Just my $0.003