| 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 viperlmw
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. |
|
PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR | reply to viperlmw
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. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Thaler: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. That's not a great score, that's a poor system of measurement. More than anything else, a traveler simply wants to get to his next step. So rather than figure out who to complain to, a traveler is more likely to figure out something else to do while waiting for his plane.
--
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:said by Thaler: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. That's not a great score, that's a poor system of measurement. More than anything else, a traveler simply wants to get to his next step. So rather than figure out who to complain to, a traveler is more likely to figure out something else to do while waiting for his plane. Wait...less than 1% is a bad score? If such great volumes of legit traffic are being blocked by this filter, then why is it filtering less than 1% of all traffic? |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by Thaler:Wait...less than 1% is a bad score? If such great volumes of legit traffic are being blocked by this filter, then why is it filtering less than 1% of all traffic? Wow -- now THAT'S selective reading.
The number of complaints is less than 1 percent. That means that less than one percent actually went through the process and successfully figured out who to complain to and then registered a complaint.
So tell me, does this mean that
a. their filtering software is excellent,
b. that their complaint channel is hard to find, or
c. that affected customers never complain?
We really don't know. But let's review what we do know ...
out of the 25,000+ Boing Boing posts classed as "nudity" by SmartFilter, more that 99.5 percent have no nudity at all. That pretty much eliminates choice "a."
If I'm bored with time on my hands, I know that I might actually enjoy the challenge of choice "b." -- but I already know I'm weird that way.
So my thinking is that either "b." or "c." is more likely to be correct and that choice "a." is practically ruled out.
--
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:Wow -- now THAT'S selective reading. The number of complaints is less than 1 percent. No, again, you're misreading the statistic. Less than 1% by daily traffic volume goes blocked each day. Their actual complaint ratio is much, much smaller (At the largest, its 0.03%. I can't get specifically smaller, as I don't have the # of days in operation this network has been running.) |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | Ah, I see it now.
"The filtering software appears to be blocking less than 1 percent of 1.7 million Web page requests a day."
My fault, I'm sorry. I totally overlooked that line.
That makes its problems appear to be quite a bit more isolated than I first understood them to be.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
"We don't throttle any traffic," -Charlie Douglas, Comcast spokesman, on this report. |
|
