I can believe anything, provided that it is quite incredible - Oscar Wilde
|
|
|
If you are using video chat you are a terrorist
A UNITED AIRLINES air hostess came up with an unusual excuse to make tech writer John Battelle hang up a video chat on her flight.
Apparently the hack who works for Valleywag was using video chat to his daughters on the plane.
The flight attendant apparently came up with the daft idea that he should not use video chat because he might be calling a terrorist. Maybe she thought Battelle could be communicating with a terrorist cell and was about to set fire to his underpants.
She said it was okay for him to talk with his kids using email or the web. Terrorists don't use email or social notworking websites like Twitter, apparently.
Obviously if United Airlines was really worried about terrorists chatting using in-plane Internet access it should not have had the hardware installed that might enable them to do it.
It seems that anxious people use the terms 'terrorist' or 'paedophile' automatically these days to calm their vague fears and justify any sort of stupid, knee-jerk oppression they like. µ
Share this:
Share
The terrorist won't be on voice chat attracting attention, he'd be piloting the plane! LOL
I feel bad for flight staff for having to explain their dumb regulations. It's not even the airline's fault, they have to follow the rules.
Just remember that when some poor guy called Dick asks you to put your water bottle away as part of the flight security checks, it's for your own safety! Don' ask him why, he will be forced to tell you that you might be a terrorist.
@LOL
I think you got your facts a little cornfused their son. Maybe you should do a little research before dribbling about war and who the good guys and bad guys are and their motivations, unless of course you're writing fiction for laughs?
We all know that by not letting people have a chat though the internet that those pesky terrorists will be foiled!
Maybe if "our guys" didn't go killing other people in their homes in their country, then their families wouldn't come over here for revenge?
"our guys" kill for oil/small weekly wage. Their guys kill so we will stop oppressing their people, stealing their oil, causing civil wars, etc etc.
Saddam was put in power by USA, then he renationalised the oil fields. The oil deals were bad for Iraq. However, he should have known that USA would do anything for the oil, including killing over 300,000 Iraqis.
How many Iraqi's have died in the conflict? Do we really care how many have died?
Reality:
More people will be killed in car journeys than in Iraq, or all the wars. Funny thing how those cars that we kill for to give them oil, those cars end up killing us. Heh. ;-)
PS - Nice article Nick, you're about the only friction dude left.
Just eject obnoxious passengers with the gray water.
No, you're not a Terrorist. But you are doing something illegal though.
It's good that airlines ban two way communication like that.
We don't need the terrorist being more organized at their mass destruction techniques.
I guess the airlines need to add I-chat to their banned list of apps.
I believe we will soon have a pretty good term for that, Ipad users... That is assuming any of them have the guts to use one in public. That is assuming anyone will buy one.
I cant say hi to them on planes or airports and now on video
hi-jack
they should change their names to john
Video chat is one of several things prohibited in the GoGo inflight internet EULA, which is what American Airlines offers.
http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/cms/term.do#term2
"No Voice Applications. You will not use any type of voice application (including, without limitation, voice over Internet protocol) without written permission from Aircell."
So, you get on a plane with 100 other people all sitting in seats with their own built-in phone, and expect everyone to be quiet? If that held water, the flight attendent would have asked hom to be quiet, rather than accuse him of terrorism.
It's for opinions ABOUT news.
Sheesh, get a clue people. It's the Jon Stewart of tech websites.
They have a name for annoying fools on trains, planes, etc. - Arsehole.
1. The flight attendant made a stupid remark.
2. John Battelle was being a public annoyance by using video chat in a cramped space filled with other people.
We need a new acronymn for Public Displays of Annoying Technology.
Personally I don't think they should even allow hacks to fly. Put them on a slow boat or make them drive. We have enough problems without allowing hacks on airplanes. They are all evil.
Libel and slander are also rude, and to top it off they are unlawful. The flight attendant broke the law by publically accusing the passenger of being a terrorist.
Sure... a terrorist calling it's cell in Netmeeting seating in the C row with hundreds of people around... what's next? It pulling an golden pistol form his turban while his modem squirts "For ALAH!!!" - besides he being using wireless...
The case is that people see "terrorists" in flashy movies using high tech gear to comunicate so they associate those misconceptions with reality...
Mix gadget that people don't see much these days with an airplane/airport/bank and BOOM!!! -TERROTISTS!!!...
It's so sad that it's barely sick... America is suffering from Panic Syndrome, and I wouldn't say there's no reason for it BUT it need to heal sometime.
WHAT'S THE SERVICE LIKE? IT'S RUBBISH!
Maybe its rude to have a telephone/video/loud conversation on a plane when others are trying to relax/sleep/not be disturbed by loud conversations?
A text is not nearly as loud as "It's daddy... daddy... can you hear me? I'm on a plane. a PLANE. AN AERO-PLANE!"
is; fascism is alive and well and staying in the livingroom.
Why not just write "Some people are stupid, even air hostesses". I would not imagine that what is alleged is a rule set by the airlines..., so really where on earth is the news in this waste of time article?