Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Airlines Plan To Filter, Censor In-Flight Internet Access 262

BlueMerle notes that the much-vaunted arrival of internet access in the friendly skies may come at the cost of heavy content filtering by the Airlines. Ars Technica's commentary is prompted by an Associated Press article which does its best to make checking your email seem sinister. "Seat 17D is yapping endlessly on an Internet phone call. Seat 16F is flaming Seat 16D with expletive-laden chats. Seat 16E is too busy surfing porn sites to care. Seat 17C just wants to sleep. Welcome to the promise of the Internet at 33,000 feet -- and the questions of etiquette, openness and free speech that airlines and service providers will have to grapple with as they bring Internet access to the skies in the coming months."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Airlines Plan To Filter, Censor In-Flight Internet Access

Comments Filter:
  • OMG censorship!!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The_Mystic_For_Real ( 766020 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @09:43AM (#21814176)
    God forbid anyone regulate behavior in a situation where they are liable for the results. The airline has 100+ strangers including children and overprotective, on edge, a little under the influence parents. They have a duty to keep order on their plane. I'm not sure that I, while I have no problem with porn and have even *gasp* watched it, would want to see a giant gangbang going on right next to me, while my rowmate eyes it longingly.
    • by SterlingSylver ( 1122973 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:01AM (#21814256)
      I support this sort of filtering for the same reasons that I support the rules prohibiting cell phones on planes. Now, ignoring the safety concerns of cell phones, the second that two or three business travelers start competing to be the loudest person so that their incredibly important conference call can hear their thoughts on the Johnson proposal is the second that other passengers start acquiring arguments for reasonable homicide. Idiots on the web can only be an even worse idea.

      I don't mind people checking their e-mail, but if airlines wish to enforce civility while I'm paying $150+ for a 1.5 hour flight to DC with a bunch of philistines...I say more power to them.
      • Idiots on the web can only be an even worse idea.

        Why? Most people who are going to be surfing the web are going to be keeping pretty much to themselves.
    • Re:OMG censorship!!! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by catwh0re ( 540371 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:06AM (#21814272)
      I think these issues will pretty much disappear once the pricing structure comes out. I doubt this is something airlines are going to offer for free. Price sensitive consumers will option it out of their ticket price. Or charging by the kilobyte will entice users to be sparing with the service.

      The flipside of course is that everyone is on for free and the plane is slashdotted by anonymised porn.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The problem with censorship isn't the desire to prevent harm, but the fact that it implies that there is some moral standard by which we all should run our lives, which I find utterly offensive to my own freedom. Children will see things eventually, so instead of hiding the truth from them, as an adult give them some parallax and understanding on what they are seeing.

      Religion, mysticism, and the supernatural are all rooted in this same tenet of moral superiority, and it is so unintelligent to be a propon
      • by YrWrstNtmr ( 564987 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:31AM (#21814396)
        Children will see things eventually, so instead of hiding the truth from them, as an adult give them some parallax and understanding on what they are seeing.

        The problem with that is that it is not up to you to determine when I should have a teaching moment with my kid.

        Do you invite your kids into the room when you and the wife are gettin it on? Do you surf porn with your 6 year old? Have you explained the finer details of tubgirl to her?
        • The problem with that is that it is not up to you to determine when I should have a teaching moment with my kid.

          The problem with that is that it is NOT up to YOU to determine what I should do just because your kid is present.

          The same claim you make goes in reverse, who are you to tell me how to run my life? You claim that this person who sits next to your kid on an airplane and watches a porn movie is telling you how to raise your kid, but by then limiting this person you are telling them how to live the

          • It's called common courtesy. Ever hear of it? If you can't wait for your 4 hour flight to end before you get to get off watching porn you have bigger problems.

            I swear, the biggest problem with society today is the "OMGWTFBBQ MY RIGHTS MY RIGHTS SCREW YOU!" attitude. Sometimes you simply CONTROL your own urges and desires for a few hours to make society flow a bit better...

            Don't swear in public, don't watch porn within eye or earshot of kids, and say "pardon me", "hello", and "good day". It'll make e

            • by Buran ( 150348 )
              While your tips are good ones for promoting polite behavior, and I fully agree with them, I do have to agree with your opposition that you have no right to tell other people how to behave. You wouldn't like it if someone did it to you, would you?

              Just yesterday I posted an opinion on a discussion forum that included no personal attacks or anything of the sort, and a responder personally attacked me using information about me that had nothing to do with my opinion, and then that person and others couldn't und
              • No, I expect that if I'm offending or irritating people they will tell me. And I'll take that into consideration next time I'm in a social setting.

                One of the reasons the US culture is considered so rude (especially to those living in Asia - I travel there a lot) is because of the blatant disregard of others around us. Loud cell phone calls, public swearing, etc. Sometimes a little consideration of those around you will go a LONG way, and being called out on rude behavior shouldn't be seen as a slight o

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Cairnarvon ( 901868 )
          So how does this relate to the issue of airlines censoring internet access? Do you expect the airlines to act as a parent to your children because you can't be bothered to look over their shoulder while they use the in-flight internet access, or tell them they aren't allowed to use it?

          Because if your concern is that the person sitting next to your kid is looking at porn and your child can actually see it, then you'll be happy to know that that person is guilty of disseminating pornography to a minor, which
        • by Tim C ( 15259 )
          Do you surf porn with your 6 year old? Have you explained the finer details of tubgirl to her?

          No, but at 6 years old she knew where babies come from, and had an overview of the mechanics involved.

          You're right, it's not up to me or anyone else when you should be teaching your kid things. In an ideal world, people would be considerate of the fact that there are kids around and modify their behaviour appropriately - curb their language, watch what they're talking about, not smoke, etc. You can't rely on that t
    • Sorry, your invocation of the over-protective parent does not inspire me to accept your censorship. Rather, it makes me think "Wow, that piece of shit parent needs to get a reality check and stop trying to reduce my liberties because they can't raise their child to be as repressed as they would like due to freedom of speech."

      You kid, your problem. You don't like that Americans like porn and boobies? Move to fucking Saudi Arabia to get your theocracy fix.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by DirePickle ( 796986 )

        stop trying to reduce my liberties
        It's a freaking airplane ride. You are knee-deep in the crush of humanity. You already had to take off your shoes and belt to get on, and the TSA already reads and records the names of your books. What liberties do you think you have on an airplane?
    • by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @12:37PM (#21815124)
      . I'm not sure that I, while I have no problem with porn and have even *gasp* watched it, would want to see a giant gangbang going on right next to me, while my rowmate eyes it longingly.

      As may be. But who, would watch hard core porn in public, a coffeeshop, or such, now? I'm sure it does happen, but this is something that most of us do in privacy, or perhaps with friends. Someone who openly watches hard core porn on a plane should be stopped by the hostesses, the same as if he started masturbating in his seat.

      Anyone likely to use their laptop to watch porn could much more easily load it up with a few GB of videos before they leave the ground, rather than see -- buffering -- at inconvenient moments, let alone probably paying a small fortune for the privilege.

      So I'm not saying that watching porn is appropriate on a plane, but trying to filter it out of the net is not going to stop it, and we all know the silly side effects of overbroad filters.

    • by houghi ( 78078 )
      For those who can not go without their porn and do not want to be censored: download it first and play it on your portable.
      With some scripting you can download a LOT more then you would probably with a connection on a plane.
    • So freakin' what? This isn't a public library, a university, or even a home internet service. It's a business used for fairly short durations by travelers. They have every right to limit the service they provide to meet their business needs, and as much as I might love me the pr0n, I see no need for anyone to access it while packed into a sardine can with a bunch of strangers.
  • by The Analog Kid ( 565327 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @09:50AM (#21814214)
    It's their own service their providing, they can do whatever they want as far as filtering. I should have the same ability to sleep on an airplane like I did before they introduced internet access. I don't need to be sitting on a plane hearing a bunch of priests telling the passenger ahead of them how immoral pornography is, or hearing a people yell and scream if someone bring up goatse.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    I mean, really, you geeks can't go without porn for 3 or 4 whole hours?

    Here's a thought: close Firefox, shut the lid on the laptop, and *gasp* actually talk to the girl sitting next to you. You just might find that you'll be enjoying the real thing, rather than rubbing one out to pictures of it.
    • by creysoft ( 856713 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:16AM (#21814332)
      Maybe the flights you always fly on Hooker Airlines are filled with hot, friendly chicks, but here's a list of the people I've sat next to on airline flights:

      A fat man
      Another fat man
      A surprisingly fat man
      An old woman who needed oxygen and smelled like cheese
      Two fat men
      A little brat (boy) who kept kicking the seat in front of him and throwing things across the aisle at his mother (on the other side of me) who in turn kept screaming at him for the whole flight
      An exhausted mom and her toddler who banged on his musical sesame street toy and screamed the whole flight.

      I would have given anything for porn!
    • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
      It's not the geeks, it's the business wonks. I remember a flight I took from Chicago to St Louis a few years ago. It was a 90 minute flight (minus the 2 hour ground delay), about 30-40 minutes of that was actually at "cruising" where you can have electronic devices on. As soon as they announced that electronic devices could be used, at least half the plane (packed MD80) pulled out laptops. From what I could tell, most were business users. They couldn't go 30 minutes without working on their spreadsheet
      • by pla ( 258480 )
        As soon as they announced that electronic devices could be used, at least half the plane (packed MD80) pulled out laptops. From what I could tell, most were business users. They couldn't go 30 minutes without working on their spreadsheets and powerpoints.

        I don't think you should necessarily presume they wanted to "work". I too have flown as a business traveller, and also pull out my laptop as soon as they let me.

        I then fired up an SNES emulator and passed the next two hours playing Super Metroid.

        I a
        • I already work (at least) a few unpaid hours every week - Why the hell would I do more?
          "You've gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need"
        • >I already work (at least) a few unpaid hours every week - Why the hell would I do more?

          Time on a plane is dead time. There's nothing else to do; you might as well be productive. Why?

          Because chances are the time you spent working on the plane can be spent actually having fun in the city of your destination.

          I'd rather spend three hours on the plane getting work done, then not have to do that work upon arrival and be able to spend a night out on the town.

          But then, that's my theory. My job (sysadmin) doesn'
        • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
          Nah, most of these people where not the type of people to pull out a laptop for games. I'm sure some were, but from what I could see most of the people appeared to be "suits". I travel on business all the time as a consultant, and have been known to pull out the old laptop to play a game or movie. But I've never been so desperate for that that I had to do it on a flight near that short.
    • by Unoti ( 731964 )

      *gasp* actually talk to the girl sitting next to you
      Haha, you don't fly much.
    • by Moraelin ( 679338 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:49AM (#21814492) Journal

      I mean, really, you geeks can't go without porn for 3 or 4 whole hours?


      Oh please, sometimes I even go without it for a whole 8 hours or more. Damn that filtering proxy at work ;)

      Here's a thought: close Firefox, shut the lid on the laptop, and *gasp* actually talk to the girl sitting next to you. You just might find that you'll be enjoying the real thing, rather than rubbing one out to pictures of it.


      Right. On a plane.

      I guess there's always the off chance that the fat guy on the right is really a beautiful woman in disguise. Or that the lady with the screaming baby behind me is really available and is carrying someone else's kid. Or maybe the fat, loud yakking couple in front of me aren't really married, and I could pick the woman up. If I didn't have any taste, that is. (And I'm not even talking about the "fat" part, as about what she's yakking loudly about.)

      But ok, let's say that I pulled the proverbial jackpot, my guardian angel used the miracle quota for a small nation and a century, or the karma accountants in the Heavens decide to give me a sorta tax return for what my ancestors suffered during the black plague and a few wars. So I'm seated next to a woman who's gorgeous, smart, horny, available, etc, etc, etc.

      On a plane.

      Have you been on one of those lately? The seating for a start has been clearly designed for halflings, and anyone over 3 ft tall will have to fold in unnatural ways just to fit their legs in there. I've been occasionally wishing for a modified Folding@home client just to figure out how I'm supposed to fold in there. Doubly so if the guy in front decides to lean his seat back on top of you, and/or hasn't understood under which seat his bag should go.

      Then we're both after the airport experience, which is designed to inconvenience you the most, so you'll know you're safe up there. And I don't mean just the coming one hour early and standing in the line for the security circus. That's just the ante. You know, the foreplay for the real shafting experience. Then you've had to put up with loud and chaotic crowds, had to find your terminal (presumably named so because by the time you're there, death doesn't look that bad an alternative) with clues that would make old adventure games look tame, had a jolly good wait because your flight is delayed, then got packed on the plane and waited another 40 minutes because some retard forgot to load the luggage too. (I swear to the elder gods, it actually happened.)

      Right. Do you figure at this point either of you is in a jolly and relaxed mood, conducive to making friends and maybe a little flirt?

      Well, if you are, I suggest you hurry up, because soon you might get your in-flight meal. Which isn't exactly candle-lit dinner material, to put it mildly. On the last flight I've been on, for example, they gave us some... chopped up weeds, with one thin slic of tomato and one thinner slice of Mozarella. It was slightly larger than a 2 Euro coin, btw. It was called "Insalata Caprese", apparently because "capra" in Italian means goat and you'd have to be one to actually enjoy it or get any nourishment out of it. (Hint: herbivores can extract protein from leaves and stalks by letting it ferment in their compartmented stomachs. Humans can't.)

      Again, forget any ideas you might have about what Insalata Caprese is _normally_ supposed to mean. The picture on Wikipedia tends to suggest something completely different than the airline version of it. I'd say that they had gone for the minimal meeting the definition (technically it had sliced tomatoes and mozarella, because they had one slice of each), but even that would be false. I don't remember it having any oil, for example.

      I don't know about you, but if you're put in a romantic mood by it, and find a woman to match... well, then may I suggest a romantic honeymoon in an authentic Spanish Inquisition dungeon, complete with top-of-the-line torture chamber? ;)
      • And I don't mean just the coming one hour early
        See, there's your problem right there!
    • by Tom ( 822 )

      Here's a thought: close Firefox, shut the lid on the laptop, and *gasp* actually talk to the girl sitting next to you. You just might find that you'll be enjoying the real thing, rather than rubbing one out to pictures of it.

      This assumes that there is a girl sitting next to you. The only times I'll give that more of a 10% chance is when I'm bringing my own, so to speak (i.e. holidays).

      I fly regularily on business trips. There are very few girls travelling at those times of day and those routes. Those that are will usually be seated next to their husband/boyfriend or boss. In the off-chance that there's actually one sitting next to you, more likely than not she'll be busy with her laptop the entire flight.

      The thing about planes

  • Common courtesy. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ari{Dal} ( 68669 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:09AM (#21814292)
    If you can't last more than a few hours with porn, you may have a problem.

    Having said that, since when does someone need internet access to view porn? I have porn on my macbook pro right now, but when I flew out yesterday and pulled it out for a bit of in-flight entertainment, I watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

    Basic common courtesy kept people from watching porn while they travelled without internet access; the same thing will keep them from watching porn with internet access. Those few asshats who can't restrain themselves, well, they're asshats regardless of internet access.

    I've also spent a fair bit of time travelling by train, which already come with free wi-fi. I've yet to see anyone browsing hotbabesxxx.com during the trip.
    • If you can't last more than a few hours with porn, you may have a problem.

      On the other hand, you may last more than a minute with an analog girl.

    • If you can't last more than a few hours with porn, you may have a problem.

      Problems exist to be solved. [myvu.com]

      The Eye-Fi [youtube.com] is an alternative solution.

      Now you can watch Tristan Taormino anywhere.

    • Basic common courtesy

      This. The freedom to do what you want does not supercede the obligation to not be an ass. Just because you can use your cell phone in flight, and goddammit it's my right and I paid for it!, doesn't give you the right to blab in your normal cell phone voice for the entire flight, and it really doesn't allow you to get off on your porn when there's a 6-year old next to you. Whatever one might believe on the raising of children, you can't force that belief on others by saying "the kid w
  • by pla ( 258480 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:23AM (#21814360) Journal
    Seat 17D is yapping endlessly on an Internet phone call. Seat 16F is flaming Seat 16D with expletive-laden chats. Seat 16E is too busy surfing porn sites to care. Seat 17C just wants to sleep.

    ...And seat 14C has established and maintained a single encrypted tunnel to a non-resolving IP, over which he appears to have routed a high volume of bidirectional traffic.


    Seriously, using airline-provided internet access doesn't magically take away the standard rules for the use of any public-access short-term ISP, whether libraries or coffee shops or just someone's open WAP - Encrypt everything!

    Of course, in the current political climate, that would probably have the gestapo waiting to "ask" me a few questions on landing, but I refuse to give up best-practices out of fear of boogey-men.
    • Of course, in the current political climate, that would probably have the gestapo waiting to "ask" me a few questions on landing, but I refuse to give up best-practices out of fear of boogey-men.
      You're just encouraging the creation of scarier boogey-men.
    • ...And seat 14C has established and maintained a single encrypted tunnel to a non-resolving IP, over which he appears to have routed a high volume of bidirectional traffic.

      That's assuming they would even allow that in the first place.
      • by pla ( 258480 )
        That's assuming they would even allow that in the first place.

        If they allow HTTP, I'd like to see 'em block it...

        You can tunnel anything over anything. As long as they allow any connections to non-whitelisted addresses, we can tunnel over it.

        That said - I wouldn't necessarily count on the condition I just gave holding true... When the airlines say "internet access", they may well mean "you can load our portal and any trusted (aka "paid sponsorship") sites to which we link directly".
  • by Tom ( 822 )
    They've got a tough task ahead of them. The thing is that in a plane you don't have privacy when surfing the web on a screen that at least two people next and two people behind you can see clearly without turning their heads much. Which, yes, gives the airlines some responsibility to make sure that there's nothing on that screen that could cause trouble. You don't want to deal with upset and angry parents and a slightly drunk porn-watcher at 30,000 feet.

    Goggles seems to be the obvious answer, but they never
  • There's a reason I keep Heavy Metal on my iPod.
  • by internic ( 453511 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:31AM (#21814392)

    Already someone could watch porn, movies or games with extreme violence, or other adult (and possibly offensive) material on their laptop. For that matter, someone could just bring a Playboy magazine on the plane to pass the time. With the possible exception of people trying to use VOIP (I wonder if the latency would be low and consistent enough), I really don't see how this brings up many etiquette questions that aren't already present on a plane. This just sounds like a lame excuse for filtering to me.

    • by Tom ( 822 )
      There's an important legal difference there, and that is the airline as provider of the questionable content. If someone brings his notebook and watches porn, the stewardess will certainly ask him to stop. If he gets it via the built-in airline system, his answer just might be "but you're providing this, and I've paid for it as part of the ticket price".

      And in a court of law, he just might win.
      • There's an important legal difference there, and that is the airline as provider of the questionable content. If someone brings his notebook and watches porn, the stewardess will certainly ask him to stop. If he gets it via the built-in airline system, his answer just might be "but you're providing this, and I've paid for it as part of the ticket price". And in a court of law, he just might win.

        Nah. Use the poster's example. If I bring "Big Hooters" magazine on board with me, and the stewardess asks me

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by holysin ( 549880 )
      To answer the latency issue.

      No, in the current incarnation VOIP won't work with air travel, well, not like a traditional phone call, it'll be more like walkie talkies, say "over" when you're finished speaking and it's the net person's call.

      It's much like trying to use Satelite internet access to make voip calls, you can do it (some people do, hell, some people even do it well), but it requires some serious packet shaping as a home user, as VOIP won't be allowed on airlines (it's not in the accepted use
      • by holysin ( 549880 )
        Sure, I decide to not post AC, and forget to remove the AC disclaimer, sheesh. Christmas day hangovers are annoying. Off to go find some hair of ye olde dog.

        Happy Christmas all, commence your arguing back and forth about how this is hurting our rights. Most of the time I'm with you, but a non monopolistic private company censoring your net access isn't a problem. Now if Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, or any company that serves your HOME does this. I have issues. But any service that serves the public ha
      • by holysin ( 549880 )
        Bloody hell! (really wish we could edit these later for times when proofreading misses a word/line, but then people could change their minds, and that's just not allowed ;-) )

        No, in the current incarnation VOIP won't work with air travel, well, not like a traditional phone call, it'll be more like walkie talkies, say "over" when you're finished speaking and it's the net person's call.

        should read:

        No, in the current incarnation VOIP won't work with air travel, well, not like a traditional phone call, it'll
  • finally (Score:2, Funny)

    I can upload on you tube, the panic on the airplane as we crash. Or IM my closes friends

    Martian_Kyo:Hi!
    Friend:Hey, what's up?
    Martian_Kyo: Well, me...but not for long ;)
    Friend: Heheh What do you mean?
    Martian_Kyo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3Ar3A11G01n9+oD1e
    Friend:?
    Martian_Kyo has signed out

  • by laejoh ( 648921 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @10:51AM (#21814508)

    I wonder what would happen if I'd open this [aljazeera.net] on an American airliner? Would people care? Probably, they'd all go nuts!

  • I'm sick of the censorship tag. 300 passengers sitting elbow-to-elbow for hours on end REQUIRES "censorship". What makes everyone think you have the right to do whatever you like on a plane and should be free from censorship in the first place? Better yet, I'll let you access whatever you like, and as soon as you expose a small child to some porn, I'll have your ass thrown in jail as soon as we land.

    You people are forgetting that we can't even bring a pair of nail clippers on board an airplane, and yo

    • I'm sick of the censorship tag. 300 passengers sitting elbow-to-elbow for hours on end REQUIRES "censorship".
      The sad thing is that the /. crowd doesn't understand that it's not even censorship. Censorship, by definition, can be done only by the government. So unless filtering is imposed by the FAA, it's not censorship.
      • Actually, I posted the same claim (that censorship is only by a government), and then got flamed into oblivion by the the dictionary police slashdot crowd. Gee, as if the meaning of words in context don't ever change, right? So yeah, you are right, the /. crowd DOESN'T understand that censorship is only done by the government (especially in this context).
        • Can you explain how this context means an action not by the government cannot be called censorship? No? Shut up, then.
          • The context is that a private company (an airline company) is choosing to filter what content will be available to protect themselves from liability (not to mention, not offended thousands of customers and lose them to another airline). This is not censorship, unless, like someone else already stated, the FAA gets involved.

            I guess your "shut up" comment is an attempt at censorhip, but since you aren't a government, I'll just consider it a lame insult instead.

            • Yes, but you haven't explained why this is a context in which action by a private business cannot be called "censorship". Since it is ordinarily a valid use of the term, the burden is on you to explain why this context is special. You just said "In a context where it's a private business doing it, you can't call something done by a private business censorship" - which is, you know, retarded.
    • Things you can do (or atleast attempt) on a plane right now:

      1. View porn stored on your laptop's harddrive.
      2. View porn stored on your video iPod.
      3. Read a dirty magazine.

      Seemingly this hasn't been a problem. Why does everyone think the internet is going to change things and must be censored?
      • Because, unlike the net, magazines and movies aren't usually pushing unexpected porn spams on you. When I buy Sports Illustrated I expect to see sports pictures, but when I type whitehouse.com, I get a nasty surprise.
    • I'm sick of the censorship tag.

      While we're sharing things about ourselves nobody else cares about, I'm sick of bloggers, pop music and the War on Drugs.

      300 passengers sitting elbow-to-elbow for hours on end REQUIRES "censorship".

      Bullshit. Until the airlines also censor obnoxious children, assholes who insist on reclining into your lap, and people's malodorous bodily gases, there is precious little point in censoring any provided Internet access. Most flights I've been on would have been much more tolerabl

  • SSL VPN's (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ececheira ( 86172 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @11:31AM (#21814770)
    If they allow access to SSL sites, then how would they stop you from using an SSL VPN to your office/home to get to any site/service you want? If they block Skype, then use your SSL VPN and go through that...

  • I am sure plain old button "call the attendant, my child accidentally saw a goatse on my neighbor's screen" will work just fine. Why all this overaccerorization?
  • Jet Blue can't even keep a story about the Flight you are on off there DTV.
  • by ravenspear ( 756059 ) * on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @12:32PM (#21815088)
    I'm sick of all this motherfucking fucking on this motherfucking plane!!!
  • by jessecurry ( 820286 ) <jesse@jessecurry.net> on Tuesday December 25, 2007 @12:36PM (#21815120) Homepage Journal
    Airlines should be dealing with etiquette violations as they happen, not by filtering content. If someone is talking too loudly, ask them to stop. If someone is looking at porn(and another passenger can see it) ask them to stop. Porn is available everywhere, but rarely do you see someone looking at porn while at a coffee shop. I think that these stories are a little sensationalist.
  • so they can filter away for all I care!
  • And if Seat 69 is an adult entertainment businessperson or webmaster? They won't be able to do their job!
  • People that are competent can still do what they want, since they will not be able to ban VPS due to business travellers. Of course, I can VOP to my macine at home and then do what I like.

    As to poern surving, I think that people doing that in public (and an ariplane seat is public) should go straight to prison after arrival. Phoning on airplanes should be resticted to special phone booths or the like. These people can damn well do without or use text chat. There is no reason at all to tolerate this type of
  • How much more Nanny State can you get? Oh Heavens, you might offend the passenger next to you. How long before First Class is unfiltered, and only steerage has to put up with crippled net access? Until airlines compete by offering "Full Internet Access", rather than the limited crap of our competitors. And we haven't even mentioned people packet-sniffing the other passenger's passwords. Will in-flight Internet speed becoming an advertising point soon?

    The only reason this issues haven't come up yet is

  • they don't really want to offer it, and are only doing it because they're under pressure to do so and want to appear progressive, but they will neuter any deployed service so that no-one will be able to use it anyway.

    Besides, a bunch of people quietly clicking away on their laptops, working, checking mail, viewing porn, or whatever else it is that people do with their computers is infinitely preferable to a gaggle of assholes yammering on their cell phones.
  • Any content that you wish to keep people from downloading while on the plane, they can easily have stored on these devices called hard drives, DVDs, etc.

    Do they plan to screen your storage devices and media prior to boarding? No. They plan to censor what content you're accessing, ahem, over the network.

    It's just not clear what they hope to accomplish. I'm all ears, what access do they want to filter that you couldn't already have downloaded and stored on your laptop?
  • I just got back from a cruise. When we pulled into home port, out came the cell phones and Blackberries. The beeping and booping all around me nearly drove me mad. If the equivalent happens in the air -- in a confined space -- I'll give serious consideration to jumping.

"You're a creature of the night, Michael. Wait'll Mom hears about this." -- from the movie "The Lost Boys"

Working...