Airline Broadband Fuels In-Flight Porn DebatePornotube orgies at 30,000 feet causing problems, apparently.... 12:08PM Friday Sep 12 2008 by Karl Bodetags: business · wireless · content · OdditiesAmerican Airlines recently started offering Gogo in-flight broadband service on select domestic flights, charging users $12.95 for cross-country flights, and $9.95 on flights of three hours or less. While the airline has said they do filter VoIP ( not always successfully), they currently don't filter website content, instead relying on passenger "good judgment." However, according to airline attendants for the airline, that judgment so far has been anything but. From Bloomberg: American Airlines flight attendants are urging the world's largest carrier to filter its in-flight Internet service to block access to pornography and other Web sites the workers said were inappropriate. Attendants and passengers raised "a lot of complaints," and leaders of the Association of Professional Flight Attendants broached the issue with management, without making a formal request for filters, union spokesman David Roscow said today in an interview. So far American is sticking to its guns concerning no filters, a spokesman saying that passengers viewing inappropriate material in the presence of others "is not a new scenario for our crews, who have always managed this issue with great success." But the volume of truly bizarre and offensive material available online is a far cry from a passenger reading Penthouse. Given this is technically still a trial, it wouldn't be surprising to see American implement filters when they expand service -- though they'll likely be circumnavigated anyway.
Related:- T-Mobile Opens Things Up
- Delta To Filter In-Flight Broadband
- Cindy McCain Gets Her Own Verizon Cell Tower
- Cellphone Inventor Knocks Carriers, Smart Phones
- Scott Cleland: Google Using 21x The Bandwidth They Pay For
- Amazon Pirate Firefox Plugin Was Art Project
- Startup Offers Smart Phone Rentals
- Verizon's Open Development Initiative? So Far It's A Joke
|
 jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
edit:
September 12th, @11:25AM
| I can understand this one... I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. | |
|  | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA | Re: I can understand this one... I agree with your statement. I strongly disagree with filters in a private environment but in a public environment (especially on a cramped, shitty American Airlines plane) I can see the logic behind their implementation. | |
| | 
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| I'm totally staying away from the "won't someone please think of the children" argument. I couldn't care less about your kids. That's the job of parents.
As far as filtering, in general I am opposed. But in this case I would have to say I agree there is a need for filtering in such close quarters.
I really don't need to be subjected to "Two Girls one Cup" on a cross country flight.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | rradina
join:2000-08-08
Chesterfield, MO
·Charter Pipeline
| Re: I can understand this one... Parents cannot filter everything their children experience. If you have children and can, please write a parenting book. I need help. If you don't have children, then please consider you have a potential knowledge gap. (You were serious and not just trolling, right?)
I believe adults have the responsibility to restrain their behavior. An ordered society requires certain behavior in public areas both toward other adults and especially toward children. There are even laws against such disruptive behavior so we cannot use the "free speech" excuse.
To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. If not, we have anarchy. We have clearly advanced beyond this whether you believe it's with or without God.
I would rather have the privilege of unfiltered access but if adults cannot consider others for the few hours they are on a flight, then we will lose that privilege. | |
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I can understand this one... I fully agree there. I didn't want to bring up the "Children" but it is one aspect to be considered. Parents CANNOT shelter them from stuff. I am very realistic and understand this point. I'm sure 12 yr old Timmy is hopping on his pc at night looking at porn, whether or not mom and dad want to admit to it. Most kids are WAY more tech savvy than their parents and bypass whatever filters that are put in place. Still, an adult has the PERSONAL responsibility to not subject others in close proximity to certain material. I know it's all about personal preference on what this material might be. However, common sense needs to rule on the side of caution when others are around. Once again, the person is an adult and has a responsibility to act as such. Therefore, what you do in your OWN home or a private setting is your problem. I could care less if you want to have an orgy with 6 women and 2 guys. However, when it comes to the public, some civility is needed. If others cannot respect this fine line, then "policing is needed" to ensure it isn't crossed. | |
| | | |
N3OGH
Will it all be Obama's fault now?
Premium
join:2003-11-11
Philly burbs
·Verizon Online DSL
| I was more looking to head the discussion off at the pass. People always seem to end up saying "what if my kids, blah blah blah".
I agree adults have a responsibility to behave as adults in public, and exercise due judgement. But, it seems like everyone lays issue after issue at the feet of "protecting the children". News flash to parents. Not everyone has kids. And if I hear one more 2 bit politician pander for votes by coming out against "violent video games" or "Gangsta rap music" I think I'm going to vomit.
Thus the reason I stated from the beginning I was avoiding it.
No where in my post did I make some free speech argument in favor of disruptive behavior. I have a bit more Constitutional knowledge than that.
Neither did I make the argument that someones rights should be permitted to impact the rights of someone else.
So I don't know how those arguments apply to my comments, as I clearly sated in my post I was in favor of filtering on flights.
--
Petty people are disproportionably corrupted by petty power… | |
| | | | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| said by rradina  :To maintain order, even atheists and agnostics must agree that their rights end when they impact the rights of someone else. The problem is that non-atheists and non-agnostics often think their views are allowed to impact the rights of non-believers such as in the abortion area. The Abortion debate usually has the Religious Types thinking that their Religious beliefs gives them the right to impact those of other beliefs. This atatude was what lead to the Crusades and the Inquisition/etc. | |
| | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| said by jc100 : On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. So is farting and crying babies, but other passengers allow it to happen anyway. | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I can understand this one... Silver, are you pulling for strings? Yes, I hate crying babies in a movie theater and on a plane. Sadly, these are things not in someone's control. No one can predict they will have gas or a colicky kid that day. Yet, a plane can stop and let a parent off if a kid is being a huge disruption. If their child is YELLING at the top of its lungs and cannot be calmed, the air line is within its full right to land and instruct the parent to catch another flight at a later time. Airlines are allowed to make judgment calls when other passengers are affected. The same with the guy with gas. If someone is SICK visibly and is shitting himself / vomiting, an airline can detour to get him or her to an airport clinic. So what's your point here? | |
| | | | SilverSurfer
join:2007-08-19
| Re: I can understand this one... said by jc100 :Silver, are you pulling for strings? Yes, I hate crying babies in a movie theater and on a plane. Sadly, these are things not in someone's control. No one can predict they will have gas or a colicky kid that day. Yet, a plane can stop and let a parent off if a kid is being a huge disruption. If their child is YELLING at the top of its lungs and cannot be calmed, the air line is within its full right to land and instruct the parent to catch another flight at a later time. Airlines are allowed to make judgment calls when other passengers are affected. The same with the guy with gas. If someone is SICK visibly and is shitting himself / vomiting, an airline can detour to get him or her to an airport clinic. So what's your point here? My point is that none of the above referenced actually happen...flights don't stop or turn around because of crying babies or even passengers shitting themselves. And you quite clearly don't fly all that often if you believe otherwise.
Porn is enjoyed quietly on someone else's laptop, which is situated directly in front of that passenger, and, in order to see it you would have to be doing some serious rubbernecking either from off to the side or behind his seat. You're acting like you're being forced at gunpoint to watch it. You're not. You're being a drama queen. Compared to all the other annoyances going on in flight, porn is really negligible. | |
| | | | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA | When a want becomes a need.... So, what other issues
have you defended as passionately,
in the last month?
NV | |
| | | | | | 
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
edit:
September 12th, @02:55PM
| Re: When a want becomes a need.... said by Noah Vail :So, what other issues have you defended as passionately, in the last month? NV I was about to ask you the same thing...
EDIT: Nevermind! I don't want to know. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·VoicePulse
| Re: When a want becomes a need.... said by dadkins :said by Noah Vail :So, what other issues have you defended as passionately, in the last month? NV I was about to ask you the same thing... EDIT: Nevermind! I don't want to know. I can answer your question.
Can you answer mine?
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
| | | | | 
birdy77
@comcast.net
| Re: I can understand this one... bull... we're all packed in planes like sardines and the last thing i need is for some guy to be sitting next to me getting all hot and horny watching porn while we're rubbing shoulders. his sex life is his own business, even if his sex life consists of his hand and his computer screen.. i want absolutely no part of it. if he wants to have an intimate moment with himself, fine.. but he should not include me. i should not be subjected to it.
i understand he wouldn't actually be rubbing one out, but he's certainly turned on by the content and i really don't want to be part of that.. that's just f*ckin gross. there are lots of men that are simply turned on by subjecting women to these kinds of things unwillingly such as flashers... it's not cool to make me a part of some twisted fantasy against my will. it's perverted. | |
| | 
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. Hood won't do any good (intentional rhyme) because the person behind you can still see over or between the seat backs.
The easier answer: get the US to stop being so sensitive about a natural act.
I'm all fine for banning "alternative" porn...I mean truly disturbing stuff like CP, bondage, etc...but normal porn? Come on...isn't it the Japanese that have an annual festival to praise the phallus? | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I can understand this one... Well Mister,
A hood probably wouldn't work. There are those FULL hoods but I was being a bit sarcastic there. I would hope people wouldn't be that desperate and resort to that. However, I guess that would be an off the wall fix, pending it sheltered them from public view. Still, porn is porn. I know it's natural but what one deems "Normal" another might not. You can't pick and choose on this issue. It's either all or none, as you can't discriminate against others based upon your personal preference. I'd rather say porn is forbidden on a plane due to the same argument that applies to fireworks and driving around with it on your mini van.
P.S. I think this also should go for one's porn collection he or she might bring along on DVD. If someone is caught watching, they should be asked to stop. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: I can understand this one... Do you raise the same questions about the legitimacy of 180solutions (Zango) as a business?
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | |
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... said by S_engineer :Do you raise the same questions about the legitimacy of 180solutions (Zango) as a business? Spyware and data-mining the same as imagery on a plane?
Uhm... no. Do you?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: I can understand this one... you miss the point. think its funny that the same people that endorse or accept one depraved industry with the justification that it's natural find it necessary to crucify another industry such as 180solutions for a different natural act, greed.
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | |
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... Not defending any industry, defending the right to open whatever page I decide and not having someone tell me what is or is not porn.
Since my posts are mainly posted as queries about who decides what is or is not porn, what does that have to do with advertisements and data-mining?
Spyware is not the same classification ad porn, is it?
*I* decide what does or does not get displayed on my laptop screen, right?
"You Got Mail"
"Hi David, just wanted to send these pics from out vacation in Bali.
Some topless and even pointless swimsuits were seen.
See Shirley(my niece - 3 years old) running away from the waves."
See attachments.
Try to go to sisters website - blocked as it has naked babies and semi-naked kids playing in a pool.
How the hell to you try and associate Playboy or simple email attachments with spyware companies?
I have a folder here with all kinds of "neat pics" in it.
Screw their internet!
Better block Google too, right?
Do tell, what do you see when you Google - Hustler ?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: I can understand this one... Whos to say it's spyware....what you might consider spyware others may consider it a target marketing tool...whos to say, you?
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
edit:
September 12th, @04:54PM
| Re: I can understand this one... Anything that places ads on *MY* machine without my consent... Damn Right!
The only way to get images from xnxx on your screen it for *YOU* to go there and agree ti the disclaimer then enter.
180Solutions - Zango is crap.
We get to remove that shit all the time because it infests machines.
Kaspersky deems it as adware and will remove it.
»www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/enc···id=61639
not-a-virus:AdWare.180solutions (Kaspersky Lab) is also known as: TR/Dldr.Istbar.BY.3 (H+BEDV), Adware.Ncase.D (SOFTWIN), Trojan.Spy.Ncase-2 (ClamAV), Adware/nCase (Panda)
Is that good enough for you? 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: I can understand this one... I can give you an equal amount of organizations that would say that the above is porn....doesn't mean it is. And when your laptop is open in the seat that *I* paid for in the seat next to *ME* and you're watching sadistic movie with Big Girls and horses,then your fetish has become an infection to *ME*
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
edit:
September 12th, @05:28PM
| Re: I can understand this one... said by S_engineer :I can give you an equal amount of organizations that would say that the above is porn....doesn't mean it is. And when your laptop is open in the seat that *I* paid for in the seat next to *ME* and you're watching sadistic movie with Big Girls and horses,then your fetish has become an infection to *ME* My laptop in a seat you paid for? Put down the pipe!
What gives you the right to be looking at my screen?
I paid for my videos, you didn't!
I get to watch my media - you look elsewhere for your freebies friend!
You violate my personal space & data, whatever that may be, and we will have a problem.
You are losing this debate. Best I have to offer you is that if we are ever on a plane in the same row, watch your own damn screen and not mine! 
Whether I have porn on my screen, the latest WWE SuperSlam, or Hellboy II... it should stay my business and not yours.
No! You cannot watch my I, Robot Blu-ray.
Neither can your kids watch my Blu-ray of Ratatouille or Meet The Robinsons.
I see you or them trying, I'll say something to you - and ya won't like it!
See how that works?
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: I can understand this one... If your fat girl with horses fetish was shown to me or my kids in flight, there would be no talk at all. You would just no longer have a functional laptop among other things. You have no right to subject your depraved turn ons anymore than 180solutions has the right to inflict their material onto people that don't want it!
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Go For It
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... You touch anything that is mine without permission, you may find it in a very uncomfortable location!
No one is forcing you to look at my - anything.
If you are too damn nosey to mind you own business and take it upon yourself to purposely look at *MY* screen - and whatever is on *MY* screen offends you - Tough shit!
*YOU* should not have been so damn nosey pal!
Let it go!
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | | | | | | | |
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
| Re: I can understand this one... I'm not your pal, nor would I be. Your too selfish for me to associate with. Second of all, your subtle attempts to act like a tough guy are laughable. Be careful what you wish for......
--
The "Lifetime" channel is responsible for 83% of all divorces...Robert Ginty | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Kiwi
Premium
join:2003-05-26
USA
·Comcast
·Aristotle Internet
| You took a wrong path and ended up in the creek, making it personal and your assumptive comparison is ridiculous.
Tell ya what, I would love to give you and David a ticket, seats next to each other and guess what....Nothing, none of this would raise it's head..LOL | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
ROCINANTE 2112
Original Member 007
join:1999-06-29
Hartsdale, NY
clubs: | Spoken like the internet tough guy who is really a scared little man who thinks he lives in a vacuum where he does not have to interact with people.
--
CRUNCH THIS! | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
bklynite
Premium
join:2001-03-18
Brooklyn, NY
clubs: | The airplane seat is not your personal space. You're in the public domain. | |
| | | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY | I need to see more images like the second one before I can come to a conclusion. | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
See 25 replies to this post | |
| | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
·Verizon Online DSL
| said by MisterMarcus :Hood won't do any good (intentional rhyme) because the person behind you can still see over or between the seat backs. The easier answer: get the US to stop being so sensitive about a natural act. I'm all fine for banning "alternative" porn...I mean truly disturbing stuff like CP, bondage, etc...but normal porn? Come on...isn't it the Japanese that have an annual festival to praise the phallus? Case in point
quote:
[Token has unknowingly watched a disturbing pornographic movie]
Token's Mom: Token? Did the boys come over and... show you a movie?
[Token just stares and remains silent]
Token's Dad: Token?
[Token remains silent]
Token's Dad: All right, Token, we know you must be very confused about what you saw.
[Token keeps staring and remains silent]
Randy Marsh: Yes, er... you see, Token, that was called a pornographic film. It shows adult men and adult women having sexual intercourse.
[Token still keeps silent]
Randy Marsh: Well, y-you see, when a-when a man and a woman fall in love, the-the man puts his penis in the woman's vagina. It's called lovemaking and it's part of being in love.
Token Williams: [after a long silence] And when the woman has four penises in her at the same time, then stands over the men and pees on them, is that part of being in love too?
[another silence]
Token Williams: Five midgets, spanking a man covered with 1000-isles dressing. Is that making love?
Token's Dad: [Aghast] Jesus, what kind of porno was that?
Gerald Broflovski: It was "Backdoor Sluts #9".
Token's Dad: Oh Jesus, not that one!
[his wife gives him a foul look]
So, how does a filter what type of porn is coming through? | |
| | | | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Just yell out "WHY ARE YOU MASTURBATING TO PORN ON THE AIRPLANE" if you see it and the person will be embarrassed and probably not do it again. I don't see why anyone has to be filtered because it never works. | |
| | | | | | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| Re: I can understand this one... said by r81984 :There is no need to ban anything. If there is a problem, the person needs to get a flight attendant and they will stop the person. Also, if they ban some internet sites can they please ban babies. I hate when they cry the whole damn flight. Its Flight Attendant....not Baby Sitter.
Wait, this is the USA. Nevermind. Same thing. | |
| |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. I also agree with you. I am totally against filtering. If I purchased that service on a plane, the last thing I would be doing is viewing porn online. However, there are people who have no thought to people around them. I am sure some moron on a plane would fire up some gay pornography or 2 girls 1 cup and this problem would happen. I expected it to happen within the first week. The fact this happened real fast just proves my point.
The few times I am on a plane in a year, I do fire up a movie. However, I don't watch Basic Instinct or some other R rated flick on my 17 inch widescreen laptop for all to see. If I want to watch something like that, I fire up my Ipod or Iphone. Then I can enjoy the flick on my own and no one can really see it unless they are sitting next to me. If I have a child next to me, which I have had in the past, I listen to music and read a book.
Just because we have these freedoms in our country doesn't mean we need to be assholes. Most of the comments in this section are full of people who agree to not be dorks about this and just filter it. Mainly because of the people who would look at this stuff while on a cramped plane without any care or thought for others. | |
| | |
MisterMarcus
join:2001-11-10
San Diego, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: I can understand this one... said by Nightfall :said by jc100 :I am adamantly against the use of filters, BUT i think in this case it is something to consider. On a plane, you have LOTS of people in close proximity. If someone is getting off to some porn or viewing obscene material, others are affected by this decision. It's kind of like the fireworks argument. Fireworks are good if you do them in a non populated area. However, if you shoot them off in a busy suburb, you risk lighting someone's house on fire. It's a chance. The same here. Viewing porn in your OWN HOME or whenever in a "private" setting (IE not a library) is fine. Yet, when your choice goes against regard for public safety or the welfare of others, it has potential of being policed due to it's affect on other's. Unless the person viewing the porn wants to buy a laptop hood, I'm all for this decision to block content. I mean there are children and others within view who PROBABLY don't need to see or wish to see some guy's fetish being displayed. I also agree with you. I am totally against filtering. If I purchased that service on a plane, the last thing I would be doing is viewing porn online. However, there are people who have no thought to people around them. I am sure some moron on a plane would fire up some gay pornography or 2 girls 1 cup and this problem would happen. I expected it to happen within the first week. The fact this happened real fast just proves my point. The few times I am on a plane in a year, I do fire up a movie. However, I don't watch Basic Instinct or some othe |
|
|
|
