rachelsfx
join:2004-09-27
Pensacola, FL
1 edit | Yes Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits?
I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. | |
|
 
pb5k
more cowbell
Premium
join:2005-11-16
Glendale, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
| Re: Yes I don't mind that they would cite "airport security" as the reason, so long as they can disclose specfically how their paid wifi access is "safe" while continental's free wifi is dangerous to "airport security". 
Put up or shut up, I say.
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt | |
|
 | 
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Re: Yes It's a well-known fact that terrorists have lots of frequent-flier miles.  | |
|
| | |
| | |
| |
| | 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Sarasota, FL
clubs: | Re: Yes Actually some groups have already fought wifi deployments based on the claim it endangers children by causing cancer. The deployments were in schools. | |
|
| | | |
| 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | I think its a joke that the airport wants to control the airline's security. The airline in my opinion should have full control off all security over the airport. The planes are the targets, not the food courts. | |
|
| iotastorm
join:2006-01-24
Florissant, MO | Well you you must realize that SANCTIONED Hot-spots must be capable of not interfering with other radio sources, instead of those UNSANCTIONED Hot Spots you know how much NOISIER they can be....(snicker, chortle, BWHAHAHAHA) | |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by rachelsfx  :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits? I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. OK, first off, Continental isn't exactly the little guy here. Secondly, how does a dispute between an airport and an airline involve the Bush administration? Thirdly, it looks like the only government agency involved (the FCC) is going to rule in favor of the free wi-fi, so where's the complaint? Fourthly, at what point did anyone mention 'national security'? Fifthly (is that a word?), just exactly what is being kept from the public?
Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant?
--
What's certain about Darwinism is that it would take less time for (1) a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being through mutation and natural selection than for (2) Darwinists to admit they have no proof of (1) - Ann Coulter | |
|
| |
| wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| said by footballdude :Honestly, does everything have to be a political rant? Yes. And, just to make you upset! (kidding of course)
It would seem that there is some amount of subject hopping going on. However, it does seem that more people are hopping on to the "In the name of security" bandwagon since the prez successfully convinced the nation using that same speech. Using people's safety against them, with no proof, has become more commonplace in the last 5 years, and is a despicable tactic.
puritan | |
|
| Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| Secondly, how does a dispute between an airport and an airline involve the Bush administration? Thirdly, it looks like the only government agency involved (the FCC) is going to rule in favor of the free wi-fi, so where's the complaint? Fourthly, at what point did anyone mention 'national security'?"
The airport appears to be dragging out the old chestnut that was lionized and popularized by Bush and his administration as a catch-all excuse to justify any action that otherwise would get uncomfortably examined.
I'm guessing the complaint is that a lot of folks are tired of hearing the "national security" excuse for many reasons that don't seem to have any connection with national security at all.
Logan Airport stated early on that unrestricted wifi in the airport posed a national security risk but I don't recall any more elaboration beyond that (which suggested that their claim was dubious).
Yes, fifthly IS a word...*grin* | |
|
| | 
cwy1980
Premium
join:2004-08-10
Monmouth Junction, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: Yes The most ironic part of this argument regarding Logan using the "security concerns" excuse is that, from a physical security perspective, cell phones are a FAR greater potential security concern than WiFi...
Poor Boston Logan Airport...all that revenue they lose from Continental's WiFi customers must really make them feel insecure...
--
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy | |
|
RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
 ·XMission
| said by rachelsfx :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." Sounds familiar. Which "Ranger" (Big Supporter) of Bush benefits? I'm sick of the "national security" label getting slapped on everything to kill it and keeping the public from knowing what is going on. I am glad you acknowledge that Bush is the most powerful President we have ever had. But I am afraid he can not take credit for this one. The MTA has been gouging people using dubious reasonings long before even Bush Senior was president. The Kingston Trio did a song called 'Charlie on the MTA' which was actually written in 1948 by Jacqueline Steiner and Bess Lomax Hawes and was a political commentary on the perceived excesses of the MTA. There are other songs over the years about the MTA, but that is the one most people know of.
So the MTA thing is older and more pervasive than even President Bush at his best can be held accountable for. They just used a bad law for personal gain, like many others, including President Bush's nemeses, Hollywood.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
| 
Fatal Vector
join:2005-11-26 | Re: Yes "I am glad you acknowledge that Bush is the most powerful President we have ever had"
Bush is the most powerfull president we have ever had? LMAO. I think you need to get a clue. Look back upon WW 2... | |
|
| | RayW
Premium
join:2001-09-01
Layton, UT
clubs:
·XMission
| Re: Yes Who else could destroy the US economy before he was allowed in the White House, and over a month before Clinton handed over the power to do so? The folks you are referring to at least had to be in office to do what they did.
But that is only the impression I get from what everyone (and I use the term 'everyone' loosely) claims Bush is responsible for and when it occurred. My personal opinions are nowhere near as lofty.
--
I am not lost, I find myself every time. | |
|
|
| BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Yes said by pnh102 :said by rachelsfx :Kill it in favor of the Big Boys based on "national security." KILL! KILL! KILL! I really should stop listening to FOX News on the way to work Mr. President please step away from the computer it;s time for your bath !
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
|
| | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Yes What the H? This is Bush's FCC leaning toward preventing someone from squishing free WiFi.
We've crossed a new frontier here--Rachel and others can bash the Bush administration even when they do the right thing.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
|
pantrw
join:2006-01-22
Mexico | well, with all due respect, US paranoia kind of makes everything a "national security" issue, and yes, it BLOWS
--
Life is too beautiful to waste it by being stupid | |
|
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ | national security = our profits
-
I think a real terrorist would just fork over the $7.95
-
get off it already. GEEZ!
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
|
|
|
·
·