United In Flight WiFi Blocks Popular News Sites

from the because-we-said-so dept

Fri, Aug 28th 2015 3:20am — Mike Masnick

So, just last month, we wrote about United Airlines idiotic inflight video system that forces you to install DRM on your own devices to watch a movie. And, now, it appears that the company is filtering out all sorts of news sites. The EFF's Nate Cardozo was on a flight yesterday when he started noticing that he couldn't get to certain tech websites, including Ars Technica and The Verge -- instead receiving messages they were blocked due to United's "access policy." The same was true for political news site Daily Kos. Eventually he even realized that United also blocks the NY Times (via his phone after the laptop battery ran out).

Both the terms of use that United has, as well as the company's FAQ about the service warn that "inappropriate or unsuitable for inflight viewing" websites may be blocked:

Of course, it's difficult to see what kind of content on any of those news sites would be considered inappropriate or unsuitable for inflight viewing. And, you know, it's letting through plenty of much sketchier sites like, uh, us at Techdirt. Basically, this makes no sense at all, and I'm sure that if United's PR people ever getting around to commenting on it, they'll say it was a "glitch" and that it won't happen again. But this is the kind of problem that you run into when you deem yourself able to control what people can and can't access online.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blocks, in flight wifi, news
Companies: united airlines

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Chris-Mouse (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 3:42am

Now that you've posted an article describing how United is screwing around with WiFi customers, Techdirt is sure to be added to the banned list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 28 Aug 2015 @ 3:55am

Until further notice, I'll assume the reason for the blockade is that these websites have not payed to be accessible while being targeted by the airline for having to make those payments. (Techdirt is not known to those who may put sites on the list.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 5:20am
  
  Re:
  Pay To Play, Mile High Edition.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 4:00am

Has United been asked which sites they ban and why yet? Or conversely, what is the criteria for the sites they don't ban?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PRMan, 28 Aug 2015 @ 4:16am

Hmm
Yet another reason to avoid United...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 4:34am

dangerous thoughts happen when you let people think for themselves which those sites no doubt encourage among their readers
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 4:52am

I wonder if this has anything to do with ad bloat on those sites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Andy, 28 Aug 2015 @ 5:56am
  
  Re:
  I figured it was either that, or those sites have autoplay videos, and they expressly state that streaming video is not allowed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes there must be some reasonable explanation, otherwise one would have to assume incompetence or worse.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:58am
    
    Re: Re:
    The thing is it's possible to block streams without blocking the rest of the site.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rick, 28 Aug 2015 @ 5:14am

Doesn't that violate net neutrality?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- orbitalinsertion (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 11:33am
  
  Re:
  No, that is like having filtered internet access in your place of employment, another person's home, or some business providing free (or not) wifi. Not that it doesn't suck.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:08am

Meh. That's what VPN's are for - amongst other things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 10:01am
  
  Re:
  That's what VPN's are for - amongst other things.
  
  I wonder if they would allow VPN connections.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 12:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    FWIW United says that it does allow VPN connections
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
United Wifi Content Police, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:09am

What?!?
Oh shit, we forgot to block Techdirt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe Biden, 28 Aug 2015 @ 5:15pm
  
  Re: What?!?
  It's discrimination, plain and simple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:14am

Dear United
Do you block my SSH remote login to my home computer which has a static IP address?

If not, then consider.

I have an app on my phone and my tablet that builds an encrypted tunnel to my home computer.

(android app: Proxoid. On my Linux computer: sshd, which enables remote SSH login.)

I haven't used this since back in the day when I needed to routinely do 'tethered' browsing from a netbook using my non-rooted phone. But it still works.

As long as Proxoid can SSH to my box at home, then all my browsing is tunneled through that login. If I browse to TechDirt, the connection appears to TD to originate from my box at home.

If the need existed, this kind of setup could be made much simpler for non geeks to use.

In short: in the long run, if you allow any kind of way to communicate packets to the outside world, people will find ways to build an encrypted tunnel through it. Even if the only form of communication were plain HTTP to, say, google. I would use a Google AppEngine app to be the endpoint of a tunnel where my Http requests/responses contained encrypted content in the body that tunneled any other kind of TCP or UDP packets through.

Unless you're going to block everything and only whitelist your preferred sites, you're going to lose this game.

Plus, I hope the FCC nails you for this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:40am
  
  Re: Dear United
  You have now been put on the No-WIFI-List
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 7:01am
    
    Re: Re: Dear United
    And probably the No-Fly list, given how Luddite FBI agents tend to be, his explanation probably went right over their heads.
    
    But he said the Bad Word™ "encryption" so he must be a terrorist!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:15am

Everyone overlooked the simplest explination
Terrorists!

Yes Terrorists, the boggey men that don't exist yet everyone is afraid of.

Imagine, your on a United flight and you visit the nytimes.com and there is breaking news "This just in....Terrorists have taken over several United flights.... 911 style plot....."

The passengers flip out and decide to restrain anyone who looks like they might be from the middle east, then suddenly someone remembers "Oh crap, the PILOT looked muslim! Get Him!"

Yes I think that explains it, its the only possible explination.

Got a better more plausible explination?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:41am
  
  Re: Everyone overlooked the simplest explination
  Greed?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 7:05am
  
  Re: Everyone overlooked the simplest explination
  And yet, if there had been such an announcement back in 2001, naming flight numbers, and a belief the hijackers intended to use the planes as flying bombs, the World Trade Center would likely still be standing.
  
  Getting cut up by someone with a knife when you don't know their ultimate intentions or believe you will be held for political ransom? Crowds tend to be sheep. Knowing you will die -- guaranteed -- if you don't resist? The passengers storm the cockpit, seize the hijackers and shove those knives where the sun doesn't shine.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
KB, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:32am

United's Free Inflight Entertainment System?
Is this article only about United's free inflight entertainment system? If so, nothing I read on the flight or from the site you visit indicated the WiFi was for anything more than watching those movies. Personally, I was thrilled with the system. A free selection of 30+ movies and even more TV shows (many of which are geared towards kids) that I get to choose from and watch on my tablet, phone or laptop instead of having to watch the one show over the crappy drop-down video screen.

I could not access any off-plane websites, but I honestly did not try too hard either. Maybe you could to some extent, but nothing I read presented the system as anything more as an expanded entertainment system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:41am
  
  Re: United's Free Inflight Entertainment System?
  Nice try United
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 10:06am
  
  Re: United's Free Inflight Entertainment System?
  If so, nothing I read on the flight or from the site you visit indicated the WiFi was for anything more than watching those movies. Personally, I was thrilled with the system.
  
  I couldn't get Alaska Airlines' to work. :-(
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:38am

How many of the blocked sites did coverage not glowing of United?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP Lawyer, 28 Aug 2015 @ 6:53am

I also cannot get to Pandora on Amtrak
Which is similarly bonkers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 7:47am

What was their motto?
Fly the friendly sky's, United!

Not so friendly anymore, eh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 28 Aug 2015 @ 8:39am

I missed it...
Do passengers pay for this? If yes, then they should demand their money back at the end of each flight telling the flight attendants that they weren't even able to read the news.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scott R, 28 Aug 2015 @ 8:39am

Works for me
I'm on a United flight right now and was able to access these sites with my phone by paying for wifi. It might have been a screwup on their content filtering system. Whatever it is, it doesn't appear to be a problem on my flight from Detroit to Denver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 29 Aug 2015 @ 7:27pm
  
  Re: Works for me
  Thanks, Scott R. from United. I'm sure that it was a "glitch" and that it won't happen again.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 28 Aug 2015 @ 4:02pm

Panera used to block access to certain news sites, too. I got around it by installing Tor. https://www.torproject.org/

I'm pretty sure this will work on United as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 2 Sep 2015 @ 1:18pm

How is this not a free speech issue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 2 Sep 2015 @ 2:56pm
  
  Re:
  How is this not a free speech issue?
  
  Depends. If you mean generally an issue with people being able to speak however they want and access any information they like, it is that kind of issue. If you mean a 1st Amendment issue, it isn't because the government is not involved.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]