Slashdot Mirror


U.S. Government Crippled by Sex, Gaming Sites

BobB writes "The U.S. Department of the Interior's inspector general has released a report that says department employees are wasting their taxpayer-funded work time going to prohibited web sites. Some of these sites relate to sex, computer games, gambling and auctions. The study found that almost $2 billion a year in productivity was being lost to these 'excessive indulgences.'" From the article: "Computer-use logs revealed more than 4,732 entries relating to sexually explicit Web sites and gambling sites. Some computers accessed sex sites for 30 to 60 minutes during the test period. More than 1 million log entries were discovered indicating 7,763 Department computer users spent 2,004-plus hours accessing game and auction sites. Extrapolated over the year, that could account for 100,000 lost work hours. Put another way, this would equal 50 full-time employees doing nothing but surfing online game and auction sites."

20 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Who's doing it, tho? by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In a couple of prior jobs executives and managers were the ones caught with gobs of pr0n on their computers. On was actually walked out the door while we all watched, his computer had been examined by the techs and was crammed with child pr0n. Dunno if he was prosecuted, I certainly hope so.

    We have logs of our sites activities, too, which can be linked directly to users. I haven't heard of anyone getting the dusting for it, possibly because half the staff in Personnel are surfing while their boss tells me how busy they are and can't do some work which truly belongs to their department.

    Even I do a little surfing, but usually during breaks or while waiting for some task to run.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Who's doing it, tho? by Bravoc · · Score: 5, Funny

      Not Me!

      I waste my time at work reading Slashdot

      er... wait a minute....

    2. Re:Who's doing it, tho? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never understood that. Even accepting that he's going to goof off on his computer, and that he wants to goof off that way, what would compel him to do it there? Can he really not wait till he gets home for that kind of thing? And to answer the obvious objection -- yes, employees typically goof off, but not at sites that could get them prosecuted. Can't he distract himself at /. or something until quittin' time?

  2. Hmmm by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    Put another way, this would equal 50 full-time employees doing nothing but surfing online game and auction sites."
    I just have one question: are they taking applications?

    1. Re:Hmmm by Dare+nMc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      2000 hours /week spread over 7800 employees.
      so 30 minutes a week???? sounds like someone is wasting time, the ones who composed this report.

    2. Re:Hmmm by tobiasly · · Score: 5, Funny
      Put another way, this would equal 50 full-time employees doing nothing but surfing online game and auction sites."
      I just have one question: are they taking applications?

      I dunno, but if there are that many government employees going to auction sites, I'm gonna go try to sell my hammer on eBay for $600...

    3. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, it's even less time than that (unless an hour suddenly became 100 minutes). 2000 hours divided among 7800 employees yields ~.25 hours per employee per week. So, each employee averages about 15 minutes slacking per week, or 3 minutes per day. They must slack in other ways because that's incredibly low.

  3. It's all legitimate, I tell ya! by csoto · · Score: 4, Funny

    Those bondage sites were just research for the CIA's "rendition" program.

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  4. Not me... by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thank God I'm not wasting all of my time surfing web sites.
    (reload)(reload)(reload)(reload)Yay, new article!

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  5. I would want more information. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    For example, what did they consider "working hours". There is a HUGE difference between doing things during 9am-12pm and from 1PM-5PM as opposed to things being done during 12-1PM or from 5PM-10PM.

    I know LOTS of people that use their lunch hour to surf the net or stay late and play video games after 5PM. I don't consider that unethical.

    Similarly, I don't think it is wrong to spend 15 minutes checking out an ebay auction or reading your personal email, while some addict goes outside and smokes a ciggarette/takes a coffee break.

    Without more information, this looks like a rabble rousing report instead of something usefull.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
  6. i hope there is no "blame the internet" bs by circletimessquare · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i'm certain that before the www there was just as much time wasting going on on just as many useless pursuits (cards, crossword puzzles, etc). if you have a job to do, and it doesn't get done, someone notices. but if you have downtime, which frequently happens in any large bureacracy, you waste your time with pointless pursuits. true in 1806, true in 2006

    it's just that logfiles make it easy to actually quantify this lost productivity for the first time. but in fact, one could make the case that the internet allows users to waste their time more... um... efficiently (snicker)

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  7. Those are some high paid 50 people! by RingDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The study found that almost $2 Billion a year in productivity was being lost to these 'excessive indulgences'.... Put another way, this would equal 50 full-time employees doing nothing but surfing online game and auction sites.

    I didn't RTFA, but this would imply that those 50 full time employees have a bill + production rate of $40,000,000/year. Or roughly $20,000 dollars an hour. Unless the 50 employees they are talking about are lobbyist, I just don't see this as accurate.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  8. Productivity? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    > "The study found that almost $2 Billion a year in productivity was being lost to these 'excessive indulgences'"
    >
    > How fast does $2 Billion get used in Iraq? I'm all for efficiency, but lets have it across the board.

    A better question: What economic output are these DOI employees (and for that matter, our mercenaries working for private contractors at 5-10 times the expense of an enlisted serviceman/woman) supposed to be creating that's worth $2B per year? In order to speak meaningfully of productivity, one first must be in the business of producing stuff.

    This is government work. Nothing's being produced, only consumed.

  9. Mod parent up! by khasim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Total all the "hours" spent surfing junk sites ... for 100,000 employees ... and even at 6 minutes a day you'd have 600,000 minutes = 10,000 hours = 416 hours = 52 employees working 8 hour shifts.

    Now, for 50,000 employees, they'd have to spend 12 minutes out of an 8 hour day to get those numbers.

    25,000 employees would require 24 minutes out of an 8 hour day.

    And so forth. These "statistics" are meaningless without knowing how many TOTAL employees there are and what the mean and median are. Are there 10,000 employees and 5 of them spend 10 hours a day surfing junk while everyone thinks they're working? And the rest of the "hours" are people surfing junk sites during lunch?

  10. A common problem by JanusFury · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back when I did IT work for a certain government agency, I'd often have to clean porn dialers, viruses and spyware off users' machines, all obviously the result of people browsing inappropriate sites at work. We even had to fire a few individuals for using the office T1 to swap songs on Napster (this was back when Napster was both popular and illegal). This sort of behavior wouldn't suprise me at the typical office, but many of these individuals were in their 40s or 50s and had Masters degrees/doctorates and made high 5 digit (or even six digit) salaries, with good medical and benefits. It suprised me that so many of the engineers and other govt. employees would waste so much time and basically damage government property at work instead of waiting until they got home to do it - it's not like they couldn't afford their own computer and internet connection. Often the stupid things they did would prevent them from using the machine to actually get work done, because the software they had installed impaired the operation of the system.

    And strangely enough, in my free time while administering some fairly sizable gaming forums, I've actually had to ban users with hostmasks indicating they were using government internet connections. I even went to the trouble of tracking down the name of one individual and contacting their boss about their behavior. It's suprising how badly some professionals will behave at work when they think nobody's watching.

    (And yes, IT is watching you. Always watching.)

    Boy am I glad I don't work in IT anymore. :)

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
    1. Re:A common problem by megaditto · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let me guess, you are no longer in IT because you illegally spied on people instead of doing your fucking job?

      You know, small things like deploying antiviruses, re-imaging the hard-disks, firewalling known threats, whatever the hell the good amins are supposed to do?

      Self-righteous assholes like you give the rest of the I.T. folks an (undeserved) bad rep.

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  11. Re:But out of how many? And where are they by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have to wonder if some are park rangers, kind of lonely (sex sites), who like to play poker over the net since the next human is 500 miles away.

    Ah, bet you forgot that they're part of the Department of the Interior, didn't you?

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  12. Rational analysis by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This truly sucks for the US government that a few employees, taking short breaks, can cripple the government. The threat is obviously not from outside terrorists, but from the employees going to ebay during their lunch breaks. If our government is so fragile, we should indeed be afraid.

    Lets look at the numbers. Over a week they counted about 7,000 employees going to illicit sites. This represents about than 1% of the 70,000 employees of the DOI. Furthermore they found that these employees spent 2000 hours on these illicit sites, or perhaps 15 minutes a day during the test week.

    From these stated fact, they found three interesting things. First, the wasted time represented 50 employees, or less than 0.1% of the workforce. Second they found that the internet use represented about 24 hours of internet use, presumable bandwidth. They then took this 24 hour number and, presumable, combined it with the total budget of the DOI, 10.4 billion, realized that 24 hours was one fifth of a week, and came up with 2 billion dollars in loss.

    So here is what we have. 1% of the employees, wasting 0.1% of the potential productive time of the DOI, uses 20% of the budget. This result does not indicate a problem with the employees, but a fundamental issue with the process of budgeting and managing money. Any structure that exposes 20% of the budget to risk due to the actions of 1% of the employees is surely inadequate.

    Now, the article did state that 'some' computers were accessing sites that would normally be considered uncool for work, and certainly those few people at those 'some' computer can be handled by management, unless those people are themselves high ranking officials that cannot be easily reprimanded. One wonders why those 'some' computers are even allowed to go to those sites.

    In the end it shows the lack of logical skills possessed by the average reporter, and, i fear, by posting it on /., the lack of logic skills of the average geek..

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  13. Lies, damned lies, statistics and reporters. by darkonc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    We've got about 0.6% 'nasty' usage.. It only sounds nasty if you don't average it out per employee. From TFA:
    A one-week study by the department's Inspector General found, however, that a lot of abuse is going on. Among the study's findings:
    • This activity accounted for more than 24 hours of Internet use during the sample period, which did not include a review of e-mail or other means of transferring prohibited material.
    • More than 1 million log entries were discovered indicating 7,763 Department computer users spent 2,004-plus hours accessing game and auction sites. Extrapolated over the year, that could account for 100,000 lost work hours. Put another way, this would equal 50 full-time employees doing nothing but surfing online game and auction sites.
    "7,763 Department computer users spent 2,004 plus hours accessing game and auction sites." That's 15.5 minutes per average user over the one week study. This probably includes coffee breaks and lunchtimes. -- but when you multiply that by thousands of users, you can get scarey numbers....
    E.G. The United states spends 1million hours per year blinking -- Just think how much time we could save if we could outlaw blinking .... (this stat is made up, but it gives you the idea of what you can get if you multiply by 300million citizens).
    --
    Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
  14. Article Incorrect on Amount by LFS.Morpheus · · Score: 4, Informative

    The original report actually says $2 million ("$2,027,887.68"), not $2 billion:
    http://www.doioig.gov/upload/InternetUsage1.txt

    --
    The space unintentionally left unblank.