Delta to filter porn on planes
Porn on a plane? Not if you're flying Delta Air Lines.
(Credit:
Delta Air Lines)
The airline, which plans to launch its in-flight Wi-Fi service later this year, has changed course on the controversial issue and now says it will block inappropriate Web sites from its Internet service, according to an article published Friday by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Previously, Delta said its flight attendants would handle situations on a case-by-case basis if passengers were viewing pornography in-flight. But now the airline says it's taking a different approach after receiving feedback from customers and flight attendants. The company is currently working with wireless provider Aircell to come up with a filter to block the inappropriate content, the newspaper said.
The question of what to do about porn-viewing passengers has been brewing for months. In September, American Airlines flight attendants and their union asked the airline to consider blocking or filtering traffic on its in-flight service. But American's management has resisted requests for putting any restrictions in place.
American Airlines and Delta are two of several airlines testing in-flight Wi-Fi. American has been offering the service on a limited basis since August 20 on some flights between New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and between New York and Miami. Delta plans to have its entire domestic fleet of 330 aircraft outfitted with Wi-Fi by the middle of next year.
While Delta may be trying to appease the masses with its plan to filter traffic, that too is not without controversy. Earlier this year, the Denver International Airport took a lot flak for blocking access on its free Wi-Fi network to Web sites that officials deemed offensive. The filtering technology used there has been criticized for blocking nonporn sites such as Vanity Fair magazine and gossip site Perzhilton.com.
A Delta representative tried to reassure the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the technology it plans to use would "limited in scope."
I understand that people don't want to be subjected to unpleasant images on their neighbor's laptop while en route. Believe me, I'd be annoyed too if someone next to me was surfing for porn on a long trip. But the fact is that it's difficult to limit or filter access to the Internet when you're asking people to pay for the service, especially when that filtering traffic may block some very legitimate sites. The Aircell service costs $9.95 on flights of three hours or less, and $12.95 on flights of more than three hours.
What's more, I'm not sure that porn on planes is really a major problem. People have certainly had access to racy magazines and DVDs for years, and in all my years of flying I've never once sat next to someone who even pulled out a Playboy magazine.
My gut feeling is that most people would be too embarrassed to call up their favorite porn sites while sitting elbow to elbow with other people. Of course, there could be that one in a million guy who can't make it from New York City to San Francisco without checking his favorite site. But filtering everyone else's traffic just to prevent this rare instance seems like overkill.
Certainly, there are lots of people who get drunk on flights. And I'm not a big fan of sitting next to someone who smells like a brewery and pukes in the little baggy they put in the seatback. But you don't see airlines banning booze. Right?
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
There are rude, nasty people out there.
If you want to surf porn, fly Virgin.
But if I see you surfing porn next to me, I'm going to spill my drink on your notebook.
I don't understand what the big deal is all about.
That doesn't make this right, we all know it will be abused. But there are no laws preventing it. I don't agree with it, I personally find most forms of censorship to be abominable and would NEVER pay money for censorship. But it's not a Constitutional violation like some would like us to believe.
Short of the case-by-case approach, nothing!
I'm more than happy that Delta is even being upfront about this. The only thing I would ask is that they provide a list of banned sites before payment of their service. This way you can know what is being blocked before dishing out a crazy 10 dollars for 3 hours!
Regardles though, it's really simple; this is not a rights violation or a preemptive unecesary move. This is a power-play by Delta to prevent the jokel in the middle seat from watching some adult cartoon off of redtube and acting as if it is his right because he paid for a service. If I was running a company, I'd rather be in the news for something like this than a lawsuit because Larry in seat 5 row B couldn't contain himself and had to watch the trailer for the new Alexis Texas trailer in plain view of some 11 year old kids and now their parents are suing.
And to the notion that people can just stuff their HD with porn anyways, I must reply this; very true! BUT, also true is Delta can ban the passenger because of that (disrupting the flight sounds like an easy reason to book 'em). Then, they can notify local authorities of the passenger's actions (you try and show pornographic images to the youth. So many charges can be brought up....)
Touche'
XD
Whoo Hoo!
There isn't a problem now with porn magazines, DVDs, and explicit files on hard drives, so I don't see how that will change with Wi-Fi. All Wi-Fi customers will end up paying more to cover the cost of the filters (which won't stop someone who really wants to get through), and some passengers will end up paying for internet access, only to find that non-porn sites (maybe even sites critical of the airline industry) are "inadvertently" blocked.
By charging customers for Wi-Fi access, it seems to me that the airline is acting as an ISP, and therefore is on shaky legal ground when they arbitrarily filter legal content (especially without justification). If allowed, it will set a precedent that undermines our civil liberties.
Sure, it's equally true that they're not blocking youtube. I wonder if they're blocking P2P downloads and VoIP as well. The issue here though is that it's not too far fetched to put a block on certain content that is both potentially offensive to other passengers *and* takes up plenty of bandwidth to do it. They have similar filters at public libraries and public schools, too. Yes I'm paying for the use of the internet on the plane, but if I must have my pr0n fix, grab it before you get on the plane. I doubt that most people that hooked on pr0n are going to have the technical prowess to devise a VPN to access it, when it's much simpler to download the content before you leave home.
Between bandwidth and potential lawsuits, I don't see why this should put Delta in hot water. Besides, if you've got no intention of looking at pr0n on a plane, it won't affect you anyway as long as they do it intelligently (i.e. I think that a blacklist system is in order).
Joey
Although it's true that one doesn't need the Internet to view porn on an airplane, that doesn't mean that Delta or any other airline should implicitly encourage it. Here's why:
Unlike the computer show, Delta often transports families with children, and if something offensive happens, you can't just take your children and leave; you're stuck with it until the plane lands. I think Delta is not only doing the right thing; it is doing the only reasonable thing under the circumstances.
However, welcome to Nanny State America, so of course the internet is going to be censored. Enjoy!
It isn't going to effect me, but i think it is actually kind of sad that there have been NO reports of actual porn use on the American Airlines system, and they just censor because people are apprehensive over the potential for porn.
weird.
- by just_curious October 16, 2008 8:24 PM PDT
- For the sake of conjecture, let's say an individual opened a skin mag or played back a porn movie file from a hard drive or from an internet connection on a plane to truly test the LAWS of the land. Or, how about on a bus? Or anywhere there is forced proximity to others (minors excluded). Is this conduct expressly illegal by any statute? Or is it simply custom or social mores that prevents someone from doing it? If said conduct was currently illegal, Delta would not have earlier chosen to use the term "case by case basis". However, let's look at another behavior that was once in fact legal on airliners, smoking. Look what happens if you try to SMOKE on an airplane today. Civil fines for smoking on an airline flight range from $2,200 for smoking in an airplane seat or cabin to $3,300 for smoking in an airplane lavatory. Tampering with a smoke detector installed in an airplane lavatory is punishable by a $2,200 fine. 14 C.F.R. § 121.317(g), (h), (i) (2005); 49 U.S.C.A. § 46301 (2005). Nobody wanted secondhand smoke. Laws were enacted. Penalties applied. Similarly, nobody wants secondhand porn. Give "porn in public" the same vilified status as smoking was given. That money shot might one day become costlier than you thought.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(32 Comments)