Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletters
For more info on a specific newsletter, click the title. Details will be displayed in a new window.
Computerworld Daily News (First Look and Wrap-Up)
Computerworld Blogs Newsletter
The Weekly Top 10
More E-Mail Newsletters 
Mike Elgan's picture
Mike Elgan

The World Is My Office

Now American Airlines to censor Wi-Fi

SANTA BARBARA, CALIF. -- I told you October 3 that Delta Airlines planned to filter out "inappropriate" Web sites for in-flight Wi-Fi. Now American Airlines announced plans to follow suit. Why the rush to censor when no abuse has yet been reported?

American acted after complaints from both flight attendents and passengers, although not a single case of a passenger viewing "innappropriate" Web sites has yet been reported.

How quick we censor -- and in this case, based on fear, rather than fact.

While some might see this as a clear case of a company making a tough call between the desire to provide full Internet access on the one hand, and the need to avoid offending other customers on the other, I see it as something different altogether.

To me, this is a clear case of what I call "anti-digital bias" -- the knee-jerk, pre-emptive impulse by many to ban, illegalize, censor or in one way or another suppress new technology.

While nobody has reported a case of any passenger using Wi-Fi to view pornography in-flight, nearly all airline terminals actually sell pornography in print form -- even though many cases of passengers viewing magazine pornography in-flight have been reported.

As an advocate and champion of mobile technology, well, I'm offended.

RSS feed icon Like this stuff? Subscribe to the RSS feed.

What People Are Saying

Censorship without censorship

I suppose its something intrinsic to the Fourth Estate that the subject of censorship becomes a knee-jerk reaction from them. Nevertheless, Mr. Elgan should look in a mirror before waxing eloquent. By his own logic, since not a single act of real censorship has been engaged in, he has no business complaining about it.

This is not MY logic, but his.

As much as I disagree with

As much as I disagree with the concept, I think the airlines are doing the right thing in accordance with laws requiring the prevention of "offensive" behavior in the workplace. If they know the possibility exists, they don't do anything, and a flight attendant is offended by the material, the airline is liable. Stupid, yes, but that's the law.

Of course, I think it's ridiculous for anyone to be "offended" by the material in question, anyway. In my mind there's a difference between "offensive" and "Offensive" (note the capital O). The former is usually meant in the sense of "I don't like it," where the second is used correctly (the most common examples would be certain racial epithets). Personally, I'd much rather see violence censored than certain natural acts (see, I'm trying hard to avoid any auto-censors in this software, too) -- said with the understanding that I'm opposed to all forms of censorship other than of properly classified material.

Porn surfing already reported

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=conewsstory&refer=conews&tkr=AMR%3AUS&sid=aeAkdfULJJ1s

"We've heard a lot of complaints from flight attendants and passengers" about travelers pulling up objectionable Web pages, said Roscow. While the union discussed the situation with American executives, it didn't make a formal request to block specific sites, he said.

I live in Canada. One of our

I live in Canada. One of our major airlines has free satellite TV at each seat with 20 or so channels for passengers to watch during flights. One of the channels is Discovery Channel Canada. One of the afternoon shows they broadcast is called Mayday ("Air Emergency" in the USA). I have spent many afternoon flights watching stories of planes crashing and almost crashing and have never once been asked to change the channel.

If airlines are going to limit what you can and can not watch on your laptop, dvd player, etc for fear it will offend others...then how about that screaming child in the seat beside me?

They already take action for laptop bad manners.

Flight attendants today have the right to require a passenger to stop viewing objectionable material on a laptop, such as an R-rated or violent film. So they are simply taking a proactive step and shutting down the objectionable material before it actually shows up on a laptop.

Every time I travel and plug in a film on my laptop, I get a heightened and sustained interest from the flight crew. the last time I booted up a film, One-Six Right, they saw the planes and thought it was going to depict a plane crash. when they saw it was a pro-aviation film, they came around to watch it more often!

Scott

"Proactive" Censorship?

"[...] taking a proactive step and shutting down the objectionable material before it actually shows up on a laptop."

Hence, the claim of censorship. Isn't that what oppressive governments have been accused of doing for years? "Proactively" shutting down the access to "objectionable" material before it actually shows up in the hands of its people? The big question is (and always has been) who decides what is objectionable? Pornography? Air disaster information? Human rights abuses? Political discourse sites?

It is a truly slippery slope, and the airlines would do better to rely on peer pressure ("Hey, buddy, you want to turn that crap off? My kid can see it!") than prior restraint and censorship. And when something does get through, by holding up the tissue-paper of prior control, are the airlines then holding themselves open to lawsuit? What will they say when confronted with "my little angel saw the evil PORNaregraphy on YOUR airplane in spite of what you told us about NOT allowing it through! Now write me a check! A BIG one!" It's a heck of a lot easier for them to respond with "it is not our place to censor or otherwise control content freely available in public forums on the Internet, it's too bad that your little angel was exposed to something awful, but you'll have to take that up with the individual, as we don't exercise any control over the content of the public Internet."

Ah, well. Nanny-government isn't enough, I guess. Nanny-corporate-america is showing her ugly face.

LEM