Is using video chat in-flight a security threat, inconsiderate, or neither?
John Battelle was sitting onboard a wi-fi enabled cross-country flight on United Airlines, and fired up video chat to wish his wife and kids a good night. (He stresses that he used headphones and the in-laptop microphone.) Then, mid-chat, a flight attendant told him to shut it down: “Security. Cameras not allowed!”
Since he was still wi-fi-enabled, but chat-restricted, Battelle fired up his inter-twitter-tubes, ran some searches, and asked if there were any legal restrictions against video chat.
Turns out there’s no federal policy against it. The closest you can find on the FAA website is this fact sheet:
While passengers are welcome to access the web, U.S. airlines offering WiFi service block the use of inflight calling using Skype or similar applications. This is not an FAA restriction; they are simply responding to the overwhelming majority of their customers, who prefer silent communications to the public nature of Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) calls.
And there’s the core of it: The airlines (and the wi-fi providers) can set their own policies. United, which uses the Gogo service by Aircell, specifies that voice over IP (VoIP) services are currently prohibited. Video chat — voice and video — falls under that.
The argument that phone calls and chats are banned out of respect for seatmates, I get. If an airline wants to ban chat, like banning IP calls, that’s their choice. But blaming that policy on security? Hardly.
The purser on Battelle’s flight argued that video chat was prohibited because it enabled terrorists to communicate with partners on the ground. Umm… and an e-mail or text message isn’t good enough for terrorists?
This is the kind of thing that drives me nuts: Airline staff making up rules, justifications, and regulations.
RSS (FeedBurner)
Read with Amazon Kindle
Subscribe by E-mail
Follow on Twitter
March 11th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
My thought was that it mostly had to do with the amount of bandwidth that Skype & similar suck up.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:42 am
Who cares if they make up rules? If we don’t want to play by arbitrary rules, then we can vote with our feet. And if everyone is making up arbitrary rules, then we can take the train, or drive, or walk.
March 12th, 2010 at 12:43 am
All voice over internet should be banned forever, like smoking. Period.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:19 am
Yes, it’s frustrating when security is used to enforce unrelated rules. That said, there are lots of rules, and they are changing all the time. Is it hard to imagine that not every FA tries to understand/learn/memorize the rationale behind each rule? And if the passenger then demands to know the reason, security is one expected to cause the least resistance.
March 12th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Oh, and to answer the question, yes, video chat should be banned. For the very reason UA has banned it.
March 12th, 2010 at 8:49 am
I was on a near empty AA flight with wifi and managed to get iChat running through the system due to the lack of other users. One attendant came by and even waved at my kids before the “Against the rules” attendant shut me down. The arbitrary rules are just silly. The courtesy factor and bandwidth should win here.
March 12th, 2010 at 11:03 am
Ok, this hits on an issue that I’m not really clear on…what is the legality of using cameras at various places in the aviation world? I’m a big aviation buff – as well as an aerospace engineer and a private pilot – and I like to photograph airplanes as well, especially ones I’ve flown on, or particularly interesting airplanes (I got photos of Southwest’s Shamu, Maryland One, and Silver One all in one visit to DEN a few months back). I like airplanes, and the photos serve as a permanent record of some of the interesting ones I’ve seen.
However, I’ve run into my own share of opposition in the name of “security” on this. Never mind that there millions of photos of airplanes already available (airliners.net for instance), or that I’m taking photos from what are public viewpoints (I’m not sneaking around anywhere to do this).
So here are a few situations I’d like clearing up. What is the legality of taking photos in these various situations? If anyone out there has the legal knowledge on this subject, I’d definitely appreciate it!
Situation 1 – Photos near airports: At LAX, the In-N-Out near the end of 24R is a great place to take photos, and nobody seems to mind. However, I tried to take photos one time of the traffic landing on 25R from the sidewalk on Aviation Blvd, and a cop came and shooed me along. I understand restrictions on taking photos from private property (tresspassing and all), but what about public land?
Situation 2 – In the airport: As mentioned before, I like to get a shot or two of the airplane I ride on, as well as other interesting airplanes at the gates. However, I’ve had a ticket person stop me before, saying that taking photos violates airport security. What’s the status of taking photos at the airport?
Situation 3 – On the plane: I haven’t received any flak from taking photos on a plane before (especially out the windows), but it appears that John Battelle did. What’s the status here? Again, I’m talking still photography, not video over wi-fi.
Again, thanks for your help y’all!
March 12th, 2010 at 11:41 am
Personally, I think this sentence says everything:
” (He stresses that he used headphones and the in-laptop microphone.) ”
Well, to be heard from an in-laptop microphone on an airplane requires you to speak at least twice as loud as normal. I’d ask him to shut it down as well. And frankly, I’m willing to bet that the attendents and purser took a page from our government and used “terrorism” as an excuse for ____, because nobody can really question it.
March 12th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
what about using the seat-back telephones for $10 a minute? oh, that’s okay!!!
March 12th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
That,s really awful. In the name of rules anyone can pressurize to do anything. By stopping doing voice chat can they stop terrorism. If yes then acceptable.
March 12th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
You clearly do not work for a government entity. This kind of thinking is standard operating procedure. If it rule, regulation, or policy isn’t on the books in black and white then you make one up to fit the circumstances. The UA purser wanted to put a stop on the passenger who may or may not have been disturbing a seatmate, but rather than be challenged by asking the seatmate, the purser just made up a rule that couldn’t be challenged. End of story–and conversation with a loved one.
March 12th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
[...] 4) It’s not a phone, but it does have Wi-Fi, a headphone jack and a microphone, so I can use it to communicate via Skype and even participate in VOIP conferences on planes. (I know I know, you are not supposed to be able to do this, but I’ve heard from several people who have found ways around blocks to VOIP inflight.) [...]
March 29th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
[...] 4) It’s not a phone, but it does have Wi-Fi, a headphone jack and a microphone, so I can use it to communicate via Skype and even participate in VOIP conferences on planes. (I know I know, you are not supposed to be able to do this, but I’ve heard from several people who have found ways around blocks to VOIP inflight.) [...]