What is Digg?169 Comments
- dotlizard, on 03/06/2008, -8/+129as abhorrent as i find censorship, i'm afraid that there's not a whole lot of room to complain about a free service. and in our litigious, blame-throwing society, can you really fault them for putting up a nanny-firewall rather than risk having teenagers viewing pr0n on their dime? and, don't libraries basically do the same thing?
- Widgett, on 03/06/2008, -5/+111Yup, if you're playing in their sandbox, it's their rules.
- putergirl, on 03/06/2008, -6/+73While I find censorship in any form to be a bitter pill to swallow, if they are paying the bill, there isn't much you can do about it.
- OneLess, on 03/06/2008, -7/+31Except that the airport is owned and operated by the city of Denver and that free WiFi, I would suspect, is provided by the good people of Denver. Should the government, then, be able to censor the Internet in the same way that it censors television and radio? I'm sure a good case could be made that the answer is yes, but I disagree.
- Tenoq, on 03/06/2008, -0/+23But they shouldn't be. This crap where corporations/councils/governments are always liable before the general populace is ridiculous. If someone is displaying porn on their laptop in an airport then THEY should be the one who is being arrested - not the people who are just providing a service in good faith. It's also not their responsibility to look after your teenagers - parents need to be controlling what they do online, not .
Wake up and take some ***** responsibility for yourselves. Enough of this suing people for ***** when it's your own damn fault.
/rant - pyro789x, on 03/06/2008, -1/+19Actually, I definitely WOULD stand for that coming from an ISP that offers its services for FREE.
- Super6, on 03/06/2008, -6/+24As bad as censorship is, especially something like the web, you're in their house and if they want you take off your shoes before you walk on the carpet then that's their choice, deal with it or get out of their house. I do find this rather hypocritical consider the fact that they sell porn magazines in the airport.
- EatingPie, on 03/06/2008, -2/+20I'm not so bugged by this, except that it's a tad overzealous in its filtering (Boing Boing).
More interestingly, David Byrne let the cat out of the bag on which filtering software was used.
http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2008/02/02032008-asp ...
Byrne's article is actually much better than the original!
-Pie - and303, on 03/06/2008, -1/+13This isn't a big deal. A lot of places filter WiFi simply because a lot people are too greedy to have such freedoms. It'd only be a matter of time before some mother slapped the airport with a 4 million dollar lawsuit because her son found a bare tit on the Google image search.
The airport is probably just following guidelines of it's legal insurance.
When you sign up with an ISP or even a WiFI you pay for access to, you usually have to go through a terms of service waiver that prevents you from being able to make them liable for the things you find or get into while on the internet. - doommetal, on 03/06/2008, -1/+11You are right, sir
- tehpwnerofn00bs, on 03/06/2008, -7/+16If I was them I would censor stuff too. I mean, I wouldn't want people watch pr0n at the airport either. They may also be liable for illegal activities.
- noumuon, on 03/06/2008, -3/+10so since i pay taxes that help fund the construction and maintenance of roadways, i should be able to do what i want on them, right? since my taxes go towards the up-keep of our public park, i should be able to walk around naked all i want, right?
just because it is tax payer funded does not mean that i can do whatever i want with it. if it was solely funded by a single person who was against censorship, then you could make the argument that censorship would be unjust. since it is, however, funded by a large collection of people, the service can not just serve the whims of any given individual. it has to serve the needs of the collective whole. i'm not saying that what they do is correct; i'm merely stating that just because it is publicly funded does not mean that anyone has the right to do what they wish, or that it defaults to being completely open. - CamperBob, on 03/06/2008, -3/+10_Who's_ paying the bill?
Do you think government services are funded with fond wishes and good intentions? - formerfatguy, on 03/06/2008, -7/+14Not much different than deleting comments at the blog owner's discretion. My blog, my rules - you know?
- Sp0rAdiC, on 03/06/2008, -0/+7But they're an airport providing a free service
- FDDIcent, on 03/06/2008, -1/+8perfect analogy.
- radu79, on 03/06/2008, -1/+8In case you didn't know, people DO pay a fee to access the airport.
Next time you book a flight, check your bill carefully. - stoppedcode12, on 03/06/2008, -2/+8I am sure the people transiting the airport are also using city services that they didn't pay for, and by for logic, people should pay a fee to access the airport, and all its facilities such as the washrooms, and waiting area.
The point is that the service is being paid for by the public, and therefore should be free of restrictions and be accessible to all. You would make a good case for your point of view if the wifi access was donated by a private corporation. - SenorCardgage74, on 03/06/2008, -0/+6Dont airport bookstores usually sell porno mags?
At any rate, I wouldnt mind them censoring certain sites on their own dime, but if its a wide net that the filtering software casts, then I think that would be really annoying.
oh and this....
"[On airport pornography] It's weird. You never see anyone purchase them, but its a matter of economics, they must be. I mean, they're not there for aesthetic purposes. They're not trying to show off their porn collection. 'Oh, whoa.. The worlds filthiest ball-draining cum-mag! Right on! Let's see what we have here. Oh *****! Puckering virgin ***** - alright I gotta get this. Hopefully no one is sitting next to me on the plane, because they're in for a rude awakening. Cause I'm gonna be spankin' it!' I'm not knocking porn, I love porn... but when I go to the airport I don't have to buy those magazines, because I have this thing called will power. And I utilize it so I don't have to whip my dick out in public. I can hold it five hours. At least until I'm in the cab on my way home."
— David Cross - CamperBob, on 03/06/2008, -11/+16There's a lot of room to complain, actually. First of all, it's not a "free" service. It's ultimately a government-administered service funded by taxpayers. The First Amendment does not allow the government to abridge freedom of speech by censoring a taxpayer-funded Internet feed.
Second, to the extent that a "free" service is offered at taxpayer expense, private competition is discouraged. Airport patrons in Denver are faced with a government monopoly that intentionally fails to meet their needs.
Solution: first get the government out of the censorship business, then get the government out of the Internet business. Denver should not be modelling its information-access policies after China and Pakistan. - inactive, on 08/26/2008, -0/+5Exactly (except I disagree with the part about arresting people for watching pr0n).
- weehead, on 03/06/2008, -3/+8Yeah I'm with everyone else. If the dont want to pay for people watching porn thats fair enough
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -4/+9You may went to read up on free speech. The government can't stop you...but they don't have to PAY for your free speech either.
- pyro789x, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5Actually, I don't think the library uses censorship...
- paulhendrixson, on 03/06/2008, -3/+7I personally don't see a problem with it. It is, after all, a public venue and it is being provided to you as a free service. It's the same as sitting in a library in my opinion.
Besides, why would you want to watch porn in an airport? I knew flights could be delayed but there has to be another form of entertainment. - noumuon, on 03/06/2008, -1/+5then by all accounts, since the roadways and their maintenance are publicly funded, i should be able to drive as fast as i want on them.
- druckster2002, on 03/06/2008, -5/+9They're paying for the internet service that you're using for free, they can censor whatever the hell they want IMO.
- cquinnd, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4You've haven't sat in a library lately, have you?
- spanglegluppet, on 03/06/2008, -2/+6Blocking porn and other semi-illegal sites I can perhaps understand. But sites like BoingBoing? You conservative *****.
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4Dugg down... have you even READ the other comments?
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4So what you are saying is that you are a selfish ***** who feels that you are entitled to more bandwidth at Panera Bread than others?
- TunaFishGangsta, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4Truth. King County Library system(kcls.org) in WA State only censors internet for those who are under 13 or those who have not consented to unfiltered access(which you have to do to get unfiltered).
It goes like this, you go to a computer, login with your library card, and there are three selections.
Computer only
Internet (filtered)
Internet (unfiltered)
The first time you pick unfiltered, it prompts you to see the librarian, where they make sure that you are over 13 and consent to unfiltered access. Then you go back and it should let you login from then on. - nathos, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4A library is public, paid for by taxpayers, so one could argue that Internet access shouldn't be censored there either.
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4If you WERE them you would censor stuff too. Not "was".
Anyway: As if you can't just watch the porn that's already on your laptop. - thebellmaster1x, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3True. Very true. I'm against ISP censorship in all cases.
But this airport get their access through an actual ISP. The airport chooses to block things FROM their ISP, not AT it. So unless you get your connection directly from the ISP, there's nothing you can do. - kenvsryu, on 03/06/2008, -2/+5Try and get your money back.
- vuoto, on 03/06/2008, -2/+5"pr0n"? Boing Boing?
Baloney. - hiikeeba, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Then let's change to name to Fee-less WiFi.
- inactive, on 03/06/2008, -2/+5Yeah I agree 100% and you could always just use proxy's
- ZiggityZhang, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Can you imagine getting to your terminal, flight's delayed, babies are crying, people are complaining, everybody's pushy and impatient...
And then you have to sit through 2girls1cup? - OrangeSoda31, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3an algorithm agreed upon by the lawm- oh wait. Nevermind. They don't even know what an algorithm is.
- Kev585, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3this is also the airport with the weird artwork and rumored underground tunnels
- bjhanifin, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3So it is 'free as in free beer', not 'free as in free speech'. As the free software people would say. :-)
- wellyuk, on 03/06/2008, -1/+4It's not practical or reasonable for a library to allow people to access porn, download torrents etc. from within a public area (particularly for the porn). So yes, it should be censored to some extent. Actually censored is the wrong word - limited.
- cquinnd, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure you have to accept to a TOS agreement when accessing airport WiFi as weil. That would provide them with a similarly legally binding waiver.
- bxblox, on 03/06/2008, -2/+5I wouldnt complain much since its free wifi. Id rather complain about airports that dont have free wifi.
- TheLoneWolf071, on 03/06/2008, -4/+7It's like censorship at the library, or on any network that is not your own. It's their rules.
- Onyxblaze, on 03/08/2008, -0/+2...except they will spend it how I want if they expect to be getting any more of it.
- Emnsta, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2No there isn't
- andycr512, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2In my opinion the analogy doesn't fit, in this case. The reason you have to drive slowly on publicly owned roads is because you are endangering others by not restricting your speed; there is no danger to others if I am looking at blocked material at an airport.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 169 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is