QP Internet Access: Optus is an overzealous Big Brother

[777]

You don't have to use it
Far from discriminating

Hmm. I think you're struggling with the definition of "discriminating" there.

 

[Happy Trails]

Hmm. I think you're struggling with the definition of "discriminating" there.

I think discriminatory might have been more apposite.

 

[EmilyHoward]

I've never noticed. The first thing I do when I connect to any "unknown" network including unencrypted wifi is establish an encrypted VPN connection elsewhere.

That has a side effect of bypassing any filtering that may be in place

um that sounds very complicated! Could a lady do that too??

EH

 

[777]

I think discriminatory might have been more apposite.

Either way "you don't have to use it" kind of misses the point.

 

[lovestotravel]

Either way "you don't have to use it" kind of misses the point.

Not really! It's a private FREE WiFi service, granted it's blocking some things it perhaps shouldn't, but if you don't like it, pay for your own internet access

 

[TonyHancock]

Not really! It's a private FREE WiFi service, granted it's blocking some things it perhaps shouldn't, but if you don't like it, pay for your own internet access

......or fly DJ and use their seemingly unblocked wifi.

 

[gbh]

Not really! It's a private FREE WiFi service, granted it's blocking some things it perhaps shouldn't, but if you don't like it, pay for your own internet access

You may think that they way it should be, but as a general proposition, that's not what the law says. If you provide a product or service to the general public, you can't do it in a way that discriminates on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Which means that you can't selectively block content because it's solely of interest to, say women, or Catholics, or gay people, any more than you can turn black people away at the door.

 

[drewbles]

You may think that they way it should be, but as a general proposition, that's not what the law says. If you provide a product or service to the general public, you can't do it in a way that discriminates on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Which means that you can't selectively block content because it's solely of interest to, say women, or Catholics, or gay people, any more than you can turn black people away at the door.

Well said and very true.

And for some strange reason reminded me of this line from Futurama:

Fry: "Do you take Visa?"
Clerk: "Visa hasn't existed for five hundred years"
Fry: "American Express?"
Clerk: "Six hundred years."
Fry: "Discover Card?"
Clerk: "Hmmm... Sorry we don't take Discover!"

Not sure why it just did!

 

[RWJ777]

It's been discussed on Flyertalk. Gay news websites were blocked, but I managed to get that rectified by filling out the feedback form.

That said, my corporate Gmail doesn't work through a browser at the SYD DOM J Lounge, but does in MEL. Go figure.

I'm pretty sure I have logged in successfully to gmail in Sydney J lounge.

 

[Kangol]

You may think that they way it should be, but as a general proposition, that's not what the law says. If you provide a product or service to the general public, you can't do it in a way that discriminates on the basis of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, etc. Which means that you can't selectively block content because it's solely of interest to, say women, or Catholics, or gay people, any more than you can turn black people away at the door.

Agreed, but QF are not providing this service to the general public - they are providing it to QP members, SG, WP, OWS, OWE, J/F pax, CL and their guests (etc)...

 

[Flying Fox]

Haven't come across a thread on this but Optus's content filtering in QPs is overzealous and amateurish and is ticking me off!

(Enough to connect via my Telstra hot spot)

Sitting in the QP looking at stories on Huffington Post (Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post). Liberal, yes, hotbed of coughography... don't think so.

Couple of stories I tried to access, including one on TomKat divorce were blocked because of the content.

Katie Holmes Used Disposable Phones To Orchestrate Divorce

I've sent appropriate feedback, but really?

Optus & Qantas: I'm an adult, I am not accessing any form of nudity, foul language or violence... what's the problem? :evil::evil::evil:


(just thought i'd clarify: it's not accessing TomKat story that's ticked me off, it's the general Amateur Big Brother attitude)

COMEDY MODE ON -

Did anyone else notice the irony in the fact that Paddy55 is unhappy with this 'Big Brother' attitude; yet his avatar pic is HAL???

COMEDY MODE OFF

 

[lovestotravel]

Agreed, but QF are not providing this service to the general public - they are providing it to QP members, SG, WP, OWS, OWE, J/F pax, CL and their guests (etc)...

Pretty much!

If you don't like the service, don't use it

It's a private WiFi service

 

[simongr]

Agreed, but QF are not providing this service to the general public - they are providing it to QP members, SG, WP, OWS, OWE, J/F pax, CL and their guests (etc)...

Hate to break it to you but all those groups are in fact part of the general public.

Pretty much!

If you don't like the service, don't use it

It's a private WiFi service

Except they market free WiFi in the lounges as a benefit of being in the lounge. However you can't use it if you have an interest in certain areas (noting the general exclusion of legally or publicly acceptable material).

I think the underlying point is not whether people wish to use the service or not but that Optus have blocked access to sites or interest to a particular group that would not be included in the above general exclusion.

 

[drewbles]

Pretty much!

If you don't like the service, don't use it

It's a private WiFi service

You can't class an unlocked, unpaid-for wifi service as private. There is no security and the terms and conditions you agree to when using it do not say "I am in the qantas club".

Due to the location of the AP's in the QP or the location of the QP in the terminal, it's not likely in AU that much of the signal leaks out, but still, it's not a private service.

IMHO this is just proving how pointless net censorship is. Telstra did not censor when they were in the lounge. Did anyone complain that they could access www.hotbusteebabesnextdoor.com (not a real URL I'm sure)? And if there were really that many examples of people 'violating' the previously un-censored service (when it was working), there would have been a filter put in quick smart.

WP/SG/OWE/OWS people are 'general public'. They have not paid for lounge access, rather been granted it on the basis of their travel patterns. It's important to remember that for these people it is *not* a 'paid for' lounge. It's an access privilege.

And seriously folks, what do you have in favour of censorship in the lounge? don't come up with an arguments saying 'think of the children!' and the like, what do you have against people being able to access regular GLBT sites (not dating/coughography sites)?

Once again, IMHO, there's no different between a person of a specific religious denomination wanting to view news that's of interest to them and their preference and someone who may be homosexual, wanting to read news that's relevant to their preference?

I think people need to keep a more open mind

 

[mannej]

Hasn't a member also provided observations of trouble accessing certain sites in the DJ/VA lounges?

I can't find the article but I swear I have read it before somewhere.

 

[lovestotravel]

Hate to break it to you but all those groups are in fact part of the general public.

Except they market free WiFi in the lounges as a benefit of being in the lounge. However you can't use it if you have an interest in certain areas (noting the general exclusion of legally or publicly acceptable material).

I think the underlying point is not whether people wish to use the service or not but that Optus have blocked access to sites or interest to a particular group that would not be included in the above general exclusion.

It's not a general public service. It's restricted....

That aside, and I have said it before, there is a form to submit for any sites that really shouldn't be blocked

Submit the form, and see what happens

 

[drewbles]

Hasn't a member also provided observations of trouble accessing certain sites in the DJ/VA lounges?

I can't find the article but I swear I have read it before somewhere.

Yup. The DJ lounge service is also filtered, but it's far less draconian than the QF ones.

 

[Berlin]

Once again, IMHO, there's no different between a person of a specific religious denomination wanting to view news that's of interest to them and their preference and someone who may be homosexual, wanting to read news that's relevant to their preference?

I think people need to keep a more open mind

Love your attitude! And really- what's next? Blocking all websites showing news aimed at indigenous people because a "private" Wifi network can be as racist as it wants to be? Or, worse even, how about some middle Eastern carrier blocking all women from accessing their Wifi?

 

[drewbles]

It's not a general public service. It's restricted....

That aside, and I have said it before, there is a form to submit for any sites that really shouldn't be blocked

Submit the form, and see what happens

Broadcast SSID + No WEP/WPA + No captive portal requesting payment + Free = general public service.

Just because it's available in a lounge that not everyone is entitled to, does not make it a private, restricted service.

 

[drewbles]

And out of interest, is there anyone in a QP today? Can they get a screen capture or print a pdf version of the captive portal? It would be interesting to see what you're agreeing to when you do connect to the Optus wifi hotspot (I'm not flying for a week or so and then it's DJ so I won't be checking anytime soon).