United provided internet access/blocking restrictions [Consolidated]
Mar 31, 2015, 3:08 pm
#47
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 112
I noticed that a few weeks ago. It's a silly restriction that sets a bad precedent. I am a professional pilot and a military reservist. One of my hobbies includes guns. They also happen to be an important part of my professional life. Who is the UA judge for what websites are to be considered offensive? Or dangerous? Are sites selling box cutters blocked? I didn't try, but can a person access pornography on UC wifi? What about racist websites? And what thought process leads a person to believe that a potential terrorist might be surfing the UC internet to brush up on how to use a gun before he finishes his last stale cookie and moves off to board his flight? Can anyone recall the last time a gun was used in the hijacking of an aircraft?
Last edited by Rock214; Mar 31, 2015 at 3:15 pm
Mar 31, 2015, 3:13 pm
#48
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
Has anyone checked to see if this particular site is blocked while using in flight WiFi?
Mar 31, 2015, 3:18 pm
#49
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: NYC
Programs: UA 1K, GE/Nexus, Marriott Gold
Posts: 266
OP, if I were you, I would have pulled out my iPad (or mifi) and went on browsing whatever I wanted. (Given UA's proven IT prowess, and my experience with wifi at UA clubs, a 4G modem is likely faster than that wifi anyway.)
It is nobody's business to decide for you what you can and cannot browse. And if occasional discomfort is the price of that freedom, so be it.
It is nobody's business to decide for you what you can and cannot browse. And if occasional discomfort is the price of that freedom, so be it.
Last edited by nikolastojsin; Mar 31, 2015 at 3:19 pm Reason: typo
Mar 31, 2015, 3:19 pm
#50
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Norway, Maine
Programs: United Silver and HH Diamond
Posts: 1,474
Frankly, I would go further and support banning anyone from flying who has been browsing websites about bombs, hijacking, or suicide-by-plane at any point in their life. I predict such web history will be commonly turned over to the TSA if you want to fly.
Mar 31, 2015, 3:20 pm
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,231
A few years back I saw a couple openly watching graphic pornography on their laptop in the SFO INTL UA Club. I wouldn't say it made me nervous, but maybe a tad uncomfortable. They were not making any effort to hide it either -- the screen was facing the ramp side, over by the bar, so anyone walking through or going to the bar for a drink had a clear view of their screen.
On the flip side of your argument, the case could be made that anyone NEEDING to look at guns during the hour or so that they spend in the airline lounge may also want to consider seeing someone.
My guess is that if using a VPN all of these issues go away, but I could be wrong...
On the flip side of your argument, the case could be made that anyone NEEDING to look at guns during the hour or so that they spend in the airline lounge may also want to consider seeing someone
.My guess is that if using a VPN all of these issues go away, but I could be wrong...
A VPN should fix the problem, yes. Time sitting in the lounge is put to good use if you need to finish up online shopping, which is possibly what the OP was trying to do.
Mar 31, 2015, 3:22 pm
#52
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
Mar 31, 2015, 3:22 pm
#53
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Anaheim, CA US
Posts: 251
It sounds likely that they are using a third party to block websites and are not micromanaging the list. Without a doubt you will be able to find inappropriate sites that are not blocked and sites that shouldn't offend anyone that are blocked. I personally wouldn't spend a lot of time on this issue.
Mar 31, 2015, 3:34 pm
#55
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: EUG
Programs: UA Gold; IHG Spire Elite
Posts: 443
It sounds likely that they are using a third party to block websites and are not micromanaging the list. Without a doubt you will be able to find inappropriate sites that are not blocked and sites that shouldn't offend anyone that are blocked. I personally wouldn't spend a lot of time on this issue.
That being said, I'm not a firearms person by any means, but I think blocking weapons sites in the UC is kind of ridiculous.
Mar 31, 2015, 3:43 pm
#56
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K 2006-2013
Posts: 334
As a discussion point, it's interesting. For me, this is simply another example of our incredible and inappropriate overreaction to the horrible events of that day.P ersonally I find the security theater (or more accurately, the illusion of security) post-9/11 to be ridiculous.
Of course, there are many who disagree....
Mar 31, 2015, 3:43 pm
#57
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: LAS, ZQN
Programs: UA PP (2MM), BA gold
Posts: 2,202
Mar 31, 2015, 4:15 pm
#58
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1k, SPG Plat 100
Posts: 619
Ah, so if I'm a writer and I want to write an article about how easy it is to find information on the internet that would allow me to build a bomb at home - which would require internet research of the kind you would ban - I should be barred from flying for life? Ridiculous.
As for OP, fire up a VPN or something. It's not a big deal, and frankly something you should be doing anyways whenever you use unencrypted WiFi.
Mar 31, 2015, 4:19 pm
#59
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 112
Mar 31, 2015, 5:35 pm
#60
Join Date: Feb 2014
Programs: UA Plat, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 677
Post security, there is no risk of someone getting additional firearms to take on the plane, but there is a risk that they may be incited to violence by something they read online.
So let's ban all websites with any references whatsoever to politics, religion or anything else that anyone could possible deem to be offensive.
So let's ban all websites with any references whatsoever to politics, religion or anything else that anyone could possible deem to be offensive.