| ... It's the airport's wireless, let them filter it as they see fit. |
|
 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Especially since its 'free'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 mrchrisOut and aroundPremium
join:2002-10-01
North Babylon, NY | Free? I guess you get what you pay for but they seem to be too cheap to actually go and purchase one that actually works without all the FP crap. |
|
 ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3
 ·DSL EXTREME
| Er...I think they purposefully sought an ISP with such filtering in mind. Reading the post, they were worried about little Johnny catching a passing-by glimpse of boobies, and so they got a solution to cut it off at the source.
The filters may be a bit draconian, but it is their network, and it is free. If they want unfiltered access, hit up a paid WiFi hotspot and browse whatever they want. |
|
|
|
en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | My thoughts as well. I'd be surprised if it wasn't full of Ad sponsored info. I think that I've seen some 'free' wifi in the Sunnyvale area before, and it was pretty bad. Very slow, but again, it was 'free'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
| reply to Millenniumle
DIA is owned by the public and is not a private entity. It's owned by the City & County of Denver Department of Aviation, and, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but any services then provided are public services. This is one of the pitfalls of public networks. You will always get someone agitating to get rid of boobies on a public network. They are afraid their tax money will enable someone to see boobs. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 | If that's the case, even more reason to go overboard on filter service settings. If I was a Denver taxpayer, I sure wouldn't want my tax monies going towards paying the bandwith of porn viewers. They can get their jollies at home. |
|
| reply to Millenniumle
Re: ... My thoughts exactly. It is free. Get your email. Check the flights and weather. Read some news. Move along inside the great white elephant formerly relocated as Stapleton. |
|
| reply to Millenniumle
Call customer service and demand a full refund!!! |
|
| reply to viperlmw
Re: DIA is owned by the public By this logic you must certainly agree that all filters to the schools should be removed. It should be fine for little kids in school to be able to make their way to porn. |
|
approval from:
woody7 
| Little kids aren't interested in porn. Little kids are interested in doing what "grown-ups" tell them not to. |
|
 TechieZeroTools Are Using MePremium
join:2002-01-25
Gibsonton, FL | reply to Millenniumle
Re: ... I agree. When did David Byrne become a douche? |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to viperlmw
Re: DIA is owned by the public said by viperlmw:and is not a private entity. It's owned by the City & County of Denver Department of Aviation, and, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but any services then provided are public services. Which make this interesting. Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that a law mandating ISP censoring unconstititional; i.e., that the line of arugment that "prefering not to deal with angry parents whose children might see pornography" isn't justification for censoring what adults might acess?
This wouldn't affect me; I'd just use a VPN tunnel to get around it. Of course, I wouldn't be using my work VPN to look at boobies, but at least I can see boingboing ...
So do they ban the magazine stands from selling Playboy, Penthouse, Maxim, The Enquirer, etc? Who know what the little children might see ...
Isn't Colorado one state that passed strong anti-gay legislation? 'sounds as conservative as states in the Southeast. |
|
kitsune
join:2001-11-26
Sacramento, CA | said by PDXPLT:said by viperlmw:and is not a private entity. It's owned by the City & County of Denver Department of Aviation, and, correct me if I'm wrong (I'm sure you will), but any services then provided are public services. Which make this interesting. Didn't the Supreme Court already rule that a law mandating ISP censoring unconstititional; i.e., that the line of arugment that "prefering not to deal with angry parents whose children might see pornography" isn't justification for censoring what adults might acess? They may very well have. But it doesn't have anything to do with this. There was no law passed in Colorado stating that they had to have this filter in place. Nor do I blame them for trying to prevent porn being viewed in public. As for the magazine stands, have you not noticed that the porn mags are encased in black plastic for pretty much the same reason. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Thaler
said by Thaler:If that's the case, even more reason to go overboard on filter service settings. If I was a Denver taxpayer, I sure wouldn't want my tax monies going towards paying the bandwith of porn viewers. They can get their jollies at home. One man's porn is another man's picture of a midget amputee wrestling with a chicken...
And that's the problem with porn filters. They don't know the difference.
What's the problem with the offended person or parent just dealing with it? -- "Hey man, you wanna take your laptop away from the check-in line, please? There are children running around here that don't need to see that!! And, please, keep both hands on the keyboard!!"
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by funchords:And that's the problem with porn filters. They don't know the difference. They certainly dont - it just throws that all out. (especially at the strict settings this airport seems to be set to)
said by funchords:What's the problem with the offended person or parent just dealing with it? -- "Hey man, you wanna take your laptop away from the check-in line, please? There are children running around here that don't need to see that!! And, please, keep both hands on the keyboard!!" Again, the airport wouldn't even have this WiFi installed if it was going to create problems/issues at the airport. It was added as a service to travelers, and like most services, if it becomes more trouble than its worth, they'd just take the whole damn thing out, screwing over the other 99.9% of users. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Thaler:Again, the airport wouldn't even have this WiFi installed if it was going to create problems/issues at the airport. It was added as a service to travelers, and like most services, if it becomes more trouble than its worth, they'd just take the whole damn thing out, screwing over the other 99.9% of users. First off, if you're a hotspot user with any brains, you use a VPN. If you use a VPN, then you're not getting blocked. So even the 1% problem is not solved.
Secondly, if your a porn hound, you probably have some on your hard drive, a CD/DVD, or a USB stick.
Third, if you're that turned on at the airport, you need to be in Senator Craig's 12-step Program.
If it has any effect at all, it's probably a placebo effect. It seems to block a lot of innocent activity, does anyone really know if it does anything useful at all?
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to kitsune
said by kitsune:They may very well have. But it doesn't have anything to do with this. There was no law passed in Colorado stating that they had to have this filter in place. You'd have a point if this was a private company; i.e., Starbucks offering a hotspot with censorship. But this is a government-provided service, one that is restricting what citizens may access. That makes it related, I think.
No wonder Europeans think we're all a bunch of repressed puritans. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| said by PDXPLT:You'd have a point if this was a private company; i.e., Starbucks offering a hotspot with censorship. But this is a government-provided service, one that is restricting what citizens may access. That makes it related, I think. So the porn viewers can get the entire service scrapped for the other 99.9% of users? Fantastic. |
|
ThalerPremium
join:2004-02-02
Los Angeles, CA
kudos:3 Reviews:
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to funchords
said by funchords:First off, if you're a hotspot user with any brains, you use a VPN. If you use a VPN, then you're not getting blocked. So even the 1% problem is not solved. Yes, no electronic lock-out manuver is 100% failsafe. Case in point, look at the "uncrackable" HD media formats out there - all broken. What the filters/locks do though, is make porn browsing inconvenient for most people...which is doing its intended job.
said by funchords:It seems to block a lot of innocent activity, does anyone really know if it does anything useful at all? As per your blocking "lots" of innocent activity:
said by "Denver Post" :
With more than 4,000 Wi-Fi connections a day, the airport has received only two formal blocking complaints so far, he said. The filtering software appears to be blocking less than 1 percent of 1.7 million Web page requests a day. |
|
