# Denver Airport installs severe internet surfing restrictions



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

For those of you who travel regularly, Denver International Airport (DIA) started offering free Wi-Fi back in November-all airports should have free Wi-Fi- but they're *using software to block "provocative" sites.* Why? To protect the lilly white kiddies, of course, from all that evil pornography zooming through the Internets' many tubes.

And what kinds of sites are they worried about?

Vanity Fair, perezhilton.com and boingboing.net are among the many.

Sports Illustrated's swimsuit photos? No dice, _*even though the magazine is prominently available in the gift shops at the airport.*_

DIA is using, "the same kinds of software filters employed by the repressive regimes of Sudan and Kuwait." To make sure no kiddies catch a glimpse of the wrong amount of skin or sin -or gossip or swimsuits-on some stranger's laptop, DIA is censoring what adults can read on the web, and *using the same programs beloved by dictators and religious thought police in places like Sudan and Kuwait and China to do it*.

More from the Denver Post:



> DIA blocks anything displaying partial nudity or even provocative underwear ads. That cancels everything from major magazines to non-prurient sex-education sites. It does not block Wikipedia's illustrated entries for "pornography" or "erotica." It blocks the barely-clothed supermodels of Victoria's Secret, but not the aggressive profanity of a humor site like The Onion.


We can all agree that this is a bad thing, right? This censorship crap? Certainly anyone that works as a writer, editor, artist, or blogger would think what DIA is doing is a bad thing.

If everything that would be inappropriate for a child to read or see has to be blocked in _any_ environment frequented by children-places like airports, schools, our own homes-then adults wouldn't be able to watch anything but Barney or read much besides Highlights for Children.

Because, you see, children are pretty much everywhere.

What do you think? Should Denver Airport be blocking content and acting as a defacto thought police?

I know I visit lots of sites while in Airports, including the Onion, The Stranger Newspaper, Comedy Central Jon Stewart Show, Drudge Report, etc.. I haven't checked to see if Nodak is blocked yet...

I'm just of the opinion that this is over the top.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> What do you think? Should Denver Airport be blocking content and acting as a defacto thought police?


What do I think???

Its their airport and their business and should be totally their decision what they want in it, end of story.

What do they have to gain leaving themselves up to complaints and maybe lawsuits for exposing kids to porn, geez. Their business is travel not a internet cafe.

Ryan you'll have to wait until you get to another wifi HOT spot to "relieve" yourself  :lol:


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

So paying an arm and a leg for ticket, sitting in the airport for hours on end because your plane is delayed, then getting thrown from gate to gate, all while being more or less forced to purchase/use outrageously priced goods is running a business!? I disagree. That's not a business...it's a screw-job. 
Basically it comes down to parenting. One thing Americans do is tend to blame others for what they mess up on or lack. There shouldn't be kids surfing the internet in an airport alone, it's as simple as that. If people would get a reasonable head on their shoulders they'd realize it's up to THEM to stop THEY'RE kids from doing it. Granted, extremely explicit material shouldn't be viewed and it's understandable that it would be blocked. However, going to that extreme is ridiculous.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Ok its not a business :roll: they do it for fun. Especailly the delay stuff they really have fun with that, they makeup all that weather with their majic weather machine just to torture people. :lol:

As for the porn its not what their kids are surfing for it because guys like you and Ryan will look at sitting in the same gate with the parents with kids, and those parents aren't going to be able to control what you guys look at

Kids grow up way too fast today, need our protection, and dont need to be exposed to most of the garbage on the internet.

You can look at the internet just not stuff inappropriate for children, what a huge sacrifice.

Adults responsible ones, woudn't have a problem with that.


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

Bobm said:


> Ok its not a business :roll: they do it for fun. Especailly the delay stuff they really have fun with that, they makeup all that weather with their majic weather machine just to torture people. :lol:
> 
> As for the porn its not what their kids are surfing for it because guys like you and Ryan will look at sitting in the same gate with the parents with kids, and those parents aren't going to be able to control what you guys look at
> 
> ...


I've flown lately, and you can't tell me that all those delays and changes are completely beyond they're control. And I resent the statement that "it's guys like you that sit at the same gate and look at unsatisfactory material." To make that accusation is unfounded...I'm merely coming from the standpoint that a locked down internet to that extent is annoying and unneeded in most situations. I've dealt with filters that don't even let you in to check your email.


----------



## redlabel (Mar 7, 2002)

If you don't agree with them you could always decide not to use their _free_ service.

I'm happy to find a plug in and either work or pop in a movie to pass the time. If I could do a little internet browsing it would be a nice benefit, and I sure wouldn't complain if I could get it for free.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Gotta say I agree with redlabel.


----------



## bjertness07 (Jan 4, 2005)

Point well taken. I rest my case.


----------

