Does Your Company Censor the Content for You?

JAZ asks: "A few days ago a friend of mine and I were discussing this story. He was trying to make a joke about some content in the article that might be considered 'inappropriate' (the bit concerning 22,000 files). I didn't get his joke because the interesting bits weren't there. With a little investigation, I determined that my company's proxy server was delivering a modified version. Is this a common practice? Has anyone else noticed something similar?"

"In this case, words were not just filtered out, but the text had been changed so that the document still made sense. I suspect that someone monitoring a log and suddenly saw a document show up a bunch of times with the offending text in it. Then they modified the cached copy (I was viewing it a day after it hit the Slashdot front page) to make the alarm go away.

I have mix feelings about this, on one hand, even though the text in this case was meant as a joke and the content wasn't very offensive, I was using company equipment. But on the other hand, this company is a government regulated entity which isn't above pressuring its employees to vote the way management thinks is best (whether it is or not is a question for history). So I guess I'm scared that the company could push an agenda though 'stealth channels'. I realize that the information I read online can't always be trusted, but there are many people who don't know that. It's probably important to note that, while there is a policy of acceptable computer use, there has never been a notice that they might change the content we see online.

What are the feelings and/or experience of the Slashdot crowd on this?"

Comments

I am sick of it

[Pan T. Hose]

"I have mix feelings about this, on one hand, even though the text in this case was meant as a joke and the content wasn't very offensive,[sic] I was using company equipment. But on the other hand, this company is a government regulated entity" [emphasis added]

As someone responsible for network administration in a "government regulated entity" (quote and quote) I am just sick of employees caught on watching pornography saying "Oh, come on! It wasn't that offensive! Someone just sent me a joke and I absolutely had to see it in my work time!" I'm sorry but I cannot tolerate it. Two years ago we were sued by a woman employee who saw pornography on the screen of one of our workers and she won. We will not make this mistake again. Actually I was the one who opted for not only filtering, but also modifying the content of packets travelling through our routers. I used snort(8) and ngrep(8) together with netsed(1) and a custom libcap app to change pornographic pictures into our special picture (it changes the img html tags src attribute) with text saying usually something like "We are watching you! We have 328 resumes of people willing to take your place, you sick pervert! One more time and you're out!" and I have to admit, it works like a charm. We had to fire few sick bastards to show that we're serious, but those new kids are working much harder than them, so it was actually good to our organization. How do I say a picture is pornographic you might ask? Simple. If it's not on images.google.com with strict filtering on. Of course people are still willing to cheat using "covert channels" but we made it clear that those are in violation of our internal policy and we can sue them for it. It's much better to work here now, but of course I still have to monitor all of the traffic. You wouldn't belive how innovative those sick perverts can be. Unfortunately we cannot fire all of them.

You make me sick

[Pan T. Hose]

I hate to flame... but you are an idiot.

Wow, how intelligent way to start an argument... I am really impressed.

Two years ago we were sued by a woman employee who saw pornography on the screen of one of our workers and she won.

Did you not think of ever blaming her?

Oh, great... Just blame the victim! For the love of god! Are you insane?

Why should some moron sue because they saw a pornographic image? Did it damage her eyes? Did it cause here to have a heart attack?

Have you ever stopped to think about menthal health issues? Of course it didn't damage her eyes! That's the most stupid question I've ever heard!

Was there any physical evidence of harm at all whatsoever?

Actually, there was a very physical evidence all over the place, since she puked. I was hoping I wouldn't be forced to talk about it, but here you go. Are you satisfied? Physical enough for you?

The answer, with a probabilitiy exceeding 99.99999%, is no. Bullshit lawsuits are a problem with the legal system, not employees looking at nudy pictures.

Those "nudy pictures" as all of you perverts keep calling illegal pornography was no bullshit in the eyes of a judge. As I've already said, she won the case.

Therefore, while your argument is strong when adhering to the concept of employee productivity, it is ruined by your example of frivolous litigation.

My example of frivolous litigation? I'm sorry, but I was the one who was sued, god damn it! For me it wasn't a "frivolous litigation" (quote and quote) as you call it! I was terrified.

Your argument contains another startling flaw: The original article was not talking about images. It was talking about text. Filtering images and text are two totally different things.

Please... It's all ones and zeroes to me. I don't care if I pay someone to work and he wastes this time on consuming pornography in the form of pictures, sound, text or a freaking holograms! Pornography is pornography.

For one thing, the employee whose screen you got sued for could have written "dirty" text during his time at the office. I doubt very much that he could be manufacturing "dirty" images during his hours at the office.

He was masturbating for god's sake! How much more "dirty" you can possibly get? I just can't believe how much sympathy you have for this fucking pervert! I for one am glad he's in jail now.

The real filtering danger this article is pointing out is the danger of filtering text. If you do not want your employees to look at porn images, make them use Lynx or block all images at the firewall. People would still be able to get the information they need. Changing the news, however, is censorship and an attempt at thought control. Are you working for the Ministry of Thought?

Ministry of Thought?! Thought control??? Are you nuts?! Heve you even read my comment?

It is nice to know that there are people out there like you who think they have the right to decide what the rest of us think and know. Why don't you move to a totalitarian state? I think you would be happy there.

I am not trying to "decide what the rest of [you] think and know" for crying out loud! It was my arse which was sued because I was the one who let a menthally unstable young mother see a fucking sick perverted bastard jerking off watching child pornography on the fucking hardware which I personally installed and configured!!! I'm sorry I reminded you about your god damned orwellian phobias! Sue me!!! You make me sick.

Do you think perverts might find it offensive?

[Pan T. Hose]

As much as I agree that the workplace generally isn't the time and place for pr0n (unless that's your work, of course) -- don't you think that someone might find your repeated use of "sick perverts" offensive?

Actually, no. Not at all. I don't force them to watch those sick pictures of disgustingly humiliated people. They like it. Therefore they are perverts. It is not my fault. This is a fact. If they don't want to be called perverts then why won't they stop being perverts in the first place?

Don't you think that making a threat against an employee might be a bit over the top just because they wanted to browse their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip, on a site that might actually not let their pictures be indexed or just hasn't been crawled recently?

I'll take the liberty to answer your question with another, much more interesting question: Don't you think that browsing their friend's recently-poseted photos of their hiking trip during the time I pay them to work is a little bit unfair, to say the very least? They get what they are asking for if you ask me.

Oh, and you must have a WONDERFUL work environment, wherever you are, with the constant threats of lawsuits against employees, throwing the word "pervert" around all the time, as well as generally inspiring work effort with the fear of a lawsuit.

Please... No one has ever told them it will be easy job. If they want to quit I have lots of other people waiting in the line. I'm not forcing anyone to work here, although I have to admit they will be lucky if they get even a web monkey job not violating the NDA they signed here. But they were not forced to sign it and that's what's important -- free will.

Can you send me an application?

Somehow I highly doubt you'd get the required security clearance. Do you have a resume published on the web somewhere? I could see what I can do. (Especially if hiring you is good for me, if you follow my drift.)

That's interesting

[Pan T. Hose]

I'm glad I finally convinced you about that. (For the lame Slashdot filter: I don't care if I have enough number of characters per line -- what a stupid filter indeed.)

Although you may have missed it, I did mention something at the start of this exchange to the effect of viewing porn during work hours being generally unacceptable, unless you're in the porn industry, or something similar. No convincing was necessary as that has been my position from the start. My differece of opinion with you was how you define porn, i.e. an image not indexed on google.

Porn "industry" be damned! I was talking about the real industry, not a bunch of perverted freaks calling their sick deviations a so called "industry" to justify their sins and feel better while they should be seeking professional help instead if you ask me. In the Real World watching pornography is unacceptable. Period. This is one of the most basic and widely accepted social norms.

I only mentioned The Third Reich as it is the most well known socialist state in the history of human kind, as well as the most abused analogy in the kind of arguments like the one you introduced.

Actually, it was a fascist, not socialist, form of government. There's a significant difference between the two, although it's not always readily apparent. (emphasis added)

Are you kidding me? Not socialist? And what do you think the "-zi" in Nazi stands for if not sozialistische? Please don't tell me (because I won't believe) that you had no idea that Nazi means Nationalsozialistische, from Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party), the infamous NSDAP, which Adolf Hitler changed the name of Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (German Workers Party) to, after becoming its leader. I hope it wasn't some outrageously stupid joke. One of my friends who had survived the Holocaust unfortunatelly passed away this year so I am a little bit sensitive to jokes about Anti-Semitism.

I'm sure there is. There are things much more important than money. The point is that you need lots of money to buy them.

I am firmly of the belief that NOT ALL things can be purchased -- some must be EARNED, and no amount of money can be substituted. I don't want to get into some deep philosophical debate on this issue, but I do want you to see my point.

Of course not everything can be purchased, it was just an intellectual shorcut of mine. Some things you buy, other ones you lease, some other you license, et cetera. But these are details. The point is that you have to work to get anything and those things you get for your work I call a payment. I don't think anyone can really know the value of anything if one doesn't have to work hard to get it, be it material wealth, intellectual enlightenment, mystical illumination, sexual intercourse or platonic love -- anything. In my opinion only hard work can result in true and honest appreciation.

But the question is: do you have plenty of money right now, and don't want any more?

Of course I want to make as much as possible. What capitalist would NOT want that? The issue isn't the desire for disposable income, but what actions I'm willing to undertake for that disposable income. If I have to compromise my principles, then I'd just a soon not have the job. I can't enjoy money that I earned unethically nor through the compromise of my principles and beliefs. If that makes me "dumb" in the eyes of some, then so be it, but I don't believe in the concept of "going along to get along."

You are not dumb in my opinion, not at all. You might be somehow naive in your utopian

You are wasting my time

[Pan T. Hose]

I belive this is something completely different than confirming to a journalist that some pervert was masturbating in the public place in a gov-sponsored lab. I don't have any friend named Sado Domina or whatever and therefore you not only spread obvious lies but you also waste the time of Slashdot readers. If you indeed know me then contact me privately. Otherwise, get lost and stop wasting my time.