TSA Internally Blocking Websites With 'Controversial Opinions'

TSA is blocking...slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:15 · Score: 0

TSA is blocking...slashdot! would have been a better title.

This isn't news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

The TSA can filter websites from their work computers, just like every other organization in the world with office drones of their own. The fact that they include "controversial" material (as well as gaming and chat sites) doesn't preclude the employees from going home and reading it on their own time on their own computers.

Re:This isn't news by mangu · 2010-07-05 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

It reminds me of once when my boss was giving instructions on which sites were appropriate to browse from work. A secretary remarked "all I browse are news sites", the boss answered "so you think you're being paid to read newspapers?"
However, the point is not that. If the TSA had an intent to regulate which sites are not appropriate for browsing at work they should include a lot more than "controversial material". OTOH, some "controversial material" shold be allowed, at least for some employees.
An agency that has "security" in its name should be on alert for security related issues, and those often generate controversy.
Re:This isn't news by Ethanol-fueled · 2010-07-05 08:34 · Score: 1

It's not news, but I'm puzzled as to why they're implementing the ban. They don't have to. The type of people who work for the TSA wouldn't bother to look up liberal garbage about "rights," and would likely rage if they stumbled upon it.
Re:This isn't news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:38 · Score: 3, Informative

Hi, I work in Aviation Security. The reason this is bad is because it goes against expected industry behaviour, we're expected to always be actively involved in our own professional development ("I must continue to upgrade my knowledge and skills."; "I must increase my awareness of issues affecting the security profession and its relationship with the community.") . This cannot be done if differing opinions to the norm are blocked.
Re:This isn't news by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-07-05 09:12 · Score: 1

Hello, I work in Information Technology. This is not any different for you or anyone else because we are all expected to keep up with our own professional development, but it is not expected to be done on company hours. They actively encourage me to go get certification for various fields, check out new products and systems, attend Microsoft (we're a primarily microsoft shop) events and so on and so forth. However, from 8 till 5 Monday to Friday, we are expected to be at our desk, running regular maintenance of the back end, and supporting co-workers through the help desk system. We are not supposed to browse any sites other than those needed to help in our daily activities. Any research or professional development can be done at home, when you aren't getting paid to do specific tasks.
Re:This isn't news by Zerth · 2010-07-05 09:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Any research or professional development can be done at home, when you aren't getting paid to do specific tasks.
Ouch, my company pays for research and education, because the company benefits from it. Of course, we don't have people jumping ship after training, either.
Re:This isn't news by yeshuawatso · 2010-07-05 09:43 · Score: 1

Yes, but doesn't this seem like a way to keep you working at all times? Your company wants you to stay on the cutting edge of technology not for yourself, but for the company. If you're checking out products,services, seminars to Microsoft and your primary duty is to service Microsoft tools, then your employer is gaming your knowledge without compensating you. Sure, you have the right to not share that knowledge, but how long do you think your job will last if you're not dishing out the goods of what you recently learned that could help the organization?
When you receive a degree, your employer is paying you for your knowledge up to that point. If you learn additional skills outside of work, you're employer isn't entitled to that knowledge. If they want it, they can pay for the cost to attend the seminar, travel and related expenses. I don't believe a company should tell you to develop yourself beyond what they're paying you for and use that new knowledge within the organization, but tell you that you're not allowed to do the same while on the clock. Either they need to help you with that development (financially, resources, contacts, etc) or inform you that your job is to do what's in your job description and specification and nothing else. That way, all professional development you've accomplished on your own time can go to the next employer after yours terminates you for another rookie right out of college.
Re:This isn't news by sjames · 2010-07-05 09:59 · Score: 1

If your employer EXPECTS it, then it is a work activity. I'm sure they DO actively encourage you to do work related activities off the clock on your own dime, with the lax labor laws, where's the downside to them?
Like many things, there is a lot of gray area and abuses happen in both directions all the time.
Re:This isn't news by Drishmung · 2010-07-05 10:05 · Score: 1
An interesting attitude from your employer.
- Do they also claim to own the rights to anything you develop on your own time, even if not related to your work?
- Are you permitted to do other work, if it's not in the Information Technology field?
- Are you permitted to do other work, in the information technology field?
- Are you also expected to perform administrative tasks in your own time?
- Are you extremely well paid?
--
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Re:This isn't news by wtbname · 2010-07-05 10:14 · Score: 1

Some of the best Google applications came from people's 20% time. Time they were being paid to do unspecific tasks...
Re:This isn't news by Altrag · 2010-07-05 10:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think you're taking 'controversial' in the wrong context. I doubt that they mean "issues that generate debate" so much as "opinions and facts that we disagree with" (yes, I'm sure it includes facts -- these sort of bans always do). Typically 'controversial opinions' in the second context are generated from the first, and the idea is to just ban one side of the argument so that the readers (TSA employees in this case) will have affirmation of the accepted side and no affirmation of the opposing view. The idea is to steer them towards your way of thinking by simply removing all other thought (of course nothing is preventing any particular employee from thinking up their own opposing viewpoint, but if they try to present it to anyone else it would quickly be pushed under the category of 'controversial opinion' and be banned as well).
Re:This isn't news by Teun · 2010-07-05 10:16 · Score: 1

Any research or professional development can be done at home, when you aren't getting paid to do specific tasks.
That's the sort of employer that can't hold on to good staff.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:This isn't news by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-07-05 10:19 · Score: 1

1) No. Though I am not hired as a developer at my work (more of a technician). I am a rare case where my experience in software development lets me work in that field but a majority of my work isn't. However, I do believe that the company has a policy that any systems developed based on any existing systems at our company belong to the company, and anything done during work hours belongs to the company. Anything after hours is not related to the company.
2) I'm not sure how that would work, but essentially, no. I'm not allowed to help with shipping, invoicing, or anything else. I am expected to do IT, it's a full time job, and there is never a moment when there isn't anything left to do. Our management has ensured that we have proper short term and long term plans, so if you've finished putting out the fires for the day you can work on the long term plans.
3) I'd have to check with my manager before I did anything other than what I've been told to do. I can't take old monitors and desktops down to electronic recycling without his go-ahead. They've drawn the lines clearly to me of what I can do without permission and what I can do on my own. And they've shown me what exactly it is I need to do every day.
4) There are only four of us in IT, it's a company of about 800 employees, across Canada. We rotate who is On-Call for the week. On-Call is not met with any extra pay, it is agreed that it is simply part of the job.
5) Not at all. I'd say I make about 5k to 10k below average.
Always actively searching, but the job market in my city isn't doing too hot for IT right now.
Re:This isn't news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 10:31 · Score: 0

I know the Naval Academy has been blocking websites beyond the normal porn/gambling/hacking/proxy sites for at least a few years now. They have fun categories like "Terrorism", "Inappropriate", and - my favorite - "Tasteless" (South Park related websites went here.) Now, they never blocked anything as mainstream as moveon.org, but midshipmen were never told what criteria were necessary to get a website banned and these were the midshipmen's personal computers in their dorm. Midshipmen aren't allowed to leave the campus during the week so the connection in their room is the only connection they have access to. Although the connection to the internet was made through a DoD network (which gave the Academy the legal right) and I never smelled any political censorship, I still wouldn't dare to take off my tin foil hat.
Re:This isn't news by williamhb · 2010-07-05 11:09 · Score: 1

It reminds me of once when my boss was giving instructions on which sites were appropriate to browse from work. A secretary remarked "all I browse are news sites", the boss answered "so you think you're being paid to read newspapers?"
However, the point is not that. If the TSA had an intent to regulate which sites are not appropriate for browsing at work they should include a lot more than "controversial material". OTOH, some "controversial material" shold be allowed, at least for some employees.
Why? It's up to them what they consider appropriate for someone's leisure use of their work computers. And unless reviewing "controversial opinion" sites is explicitly part of your job, I don't think they want to pay you to have raving arguments over the internet all day.
Re:This isn't news by Dr+Herbert+West · 2010-07-05 12:05 · Score: 1

I'm with Zerth here-- as a freelancer, I have to be constantly updating my skillset to stay competitive in the marketplace, which I do on my own time (because ALL my time is my own) at my own expense.

As an employee, however, I feel that it's my employer's job to keep the company competitive-- which means keeping all technology and assets (employees are an asset) current at the company's expense. That's one reason why my employer gets a bigger slice of the client's dollars than I do.
Re:This isn't news by acalltoreason · 2010-07-05 12:40 · Score: 0

True, but that still doesn't make it right. The government should entertain all points of view. Plus they could, if it were unfiltered, monitor the connections for suspicious activity.

--
Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
Re:This isn't news by Drishmung · 2010-07-05 13:02 · Score: 1

I meant, could you take a second job? Could you make and sell artwork (not IT related), or write and sell software (IT related) during the weekends.
By administrative tasks I meant things like writing reports about your work, as opposed to doing your work.

--
Protoplasm. Quiet Protoplasm. I like quiet protoplasm.
Re:This isn't news by WNight · 2010-07-05 14:46 · Score: 1

Sure, in a simplistic sense, they have the right to control what goes on at work.
But they're our employees and this might be something I want them to read. The issue is a government agency wanting the ability to keep their agents from reading anything controversial.
It's censorship, which is done to keep the agents easily controlled and to build artificial us/them barriers against those with dissenting views. It's fundamentally at odds with the needs of the people for educated servants who judge the ethics of their orders for themselves.
Yes it's legal, but that they're trying it is a bad sign. It's like maximum IQ limits for cops.
Re:This isn't news by WNight · 2010-07-05 14:49 · Score: 1

If surfing never came up in the context of TSA work why would they ban it? Hmmm?
Presumably this would apply to lunch-time browsing as well. Maybe that's all it is.
And what they decide is only as appropriate as we, their bosses, say it is. This isn't some private company.
Re:This isn't news by WNight · 2010-07-05 15:23 · Score: 1

I'd say that your company doesn't care if you learn or not. They'll keep you while you do, but ditch you for a new person at a moment's notice if you fail to. They see you as replaceable so they don't need to spend time maintaining you. Like how with a cheap tool it's more efficient to use it hard and buy another one.
A company like Zerth's recognizes that there's more to tech skills than the flavor of the day and they strive to find a competent person and keep training them so they bring the benefits of their wisdom to the new problems.
You might have all of Zerth's skills, and do all of the training he does (on your own time!), but he'll get respect for it because his company sees it as improving a resource and you'll get squat because your company doesn't. If anything they'll see it as a weakness - always training and always staying in the same place.
I'm not the slightest bit surprised that you are paid lowly and yet expected to do more work (on-call). You're just justifying their beliefs by being willing to work a crappy job with bad hours for low pay. If you could do better you would, they figure, so why would they pay more or treat you better?
Re:This isn't news by danlip · 2010-07-05 16:16 · Score: 1

You can't fairly compare the TSA to a private employer. A private employer can censor whatever they please on their employee's computers, but the TSA is a government agency, and so shouldn't be censoring anything, especially political debate.
Re:This isn't news by Cimexus · 2010-07-05 18:08 · Score: 1

Agreed.
Many workplaces (and almost ALL ~Government~ workplaces) have their web access filtered to a greater or lesser extent. My wife works for a government department (here in Australia) and she can't access any webmail, facebook, twitter etc. Any site that their BOFH deems productivity-killing. Of course, that just means everyone checks those sites from their mobile phones instead, so it's kinda pointless.
Therefore I see this as being a bit of a non-issue. TSA employees can see whatever they want on their personal connections (at home, via their phones etc.) I suppose there is an argument that 'controversial opinions' is a bit of a weird criteria to block by, even for a Govt. department. But at the end of the day, it's their connection and as an employee you have agreed to abide by their policies.
Re:This isn't news by Cimexus · 2010-07-05 18:11 · Score: 1

TSA is a pretty big department and I'm sure a few don't fit that description.
As an aside, I wonder if /. needs a 'GrossGeneralisationGuy' to go along with its 'BadAnalogyGuy'. ;)
Re:This isn't news by Cimexus · 2010-07-05 18:17 · Score: 1

Wow that sucks.
I work in IT and yes we are expected to keep up with our own professional development. But we do not have to do it in our own time. We have a specific number of days of training per financial year which we should aim at using (i.e. standard, paid work days). We can browse around and choose whatever training we'd like to do (within reason) and the boss will approve payment for it and off we go. In fact, he gets grumpy if we don't do this, because he gets a training budget for each quarter and if our team doesn't use it, it just goes to waste.
This has been the same for both small (~100 employee) and large (>100,000 employee) IT companies I've worked for. You're getting a bad deal :(
Re:This isn't news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 18:33 · Score: 0

I used to work at TSA. There's lots of times with nothing to do. The saps up front who deal with airport guys have to stand around, but the saps in the back with the luggage just do stuff like wave dildos/vibrators/porn/bras/panties around, look through people's cameras and computers out of boredom, read magazines/books from suitcases, play instruments from people's luggage, steal jewelry/sunglasses/medication/alcohol/money. Next time you ship golf clubs, take out your caddy tip money.
You'd think letting some sit around surfing would be a bit better for citizens.
Oddly enough, I used to work with a furry virgin and a swinger.
Re:This isn't news by the_womble · 2010-07-05 19:41 · Score: 1

I have done jobs where I was paid to read news (at least news related to certain industries). That news sometimes appeared first on general news sites.
It was also part of my job to read alcohol and tobacco related websites (e.g. Diageo's and BAT's corporate sites), which were blocked as a category until I complained.
The email system blocked any email with images. The only time I ever got emails with attached images they were work related - on the other hand non-work related images (usually funny ones) got through fine because people usually embedded them in an MS Word doc.
You are pretty safe blocking porn sites, but even there where do you draw the line? Some filtering services will block sites that carry images that newspapers are happy to carry and no one sane could object to (e.g. works of art depicting nudity).
They have a right to block stuff on their own network, but blocking is very difficult to do if you want to be sure that you do not impede people's work.
Re:This isn't news by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 20:21 · Score: 0

Then why don't they block everything not just the perspectives they dislike? That's the problem.
Re:This isn't news by master_p · 2010-07-05 21:10 · Score: 1

So an employee must have the same views as his/her employer? gee, I didn't know that.
Re:This isn't news by CarbonShell · 2010-07-05 22:58 · Score: 1

By this definition, any site surrounding 'The Theory of Evolution', Christianity, Islam, same sex marriges, stem cell research and others would be blocked.
Re:This isn't news by Xiver · 2010-07-06 01:40 · Score: 1

Obviously you don't know what you're talking about because... CENSORED

--
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
Re:This isn't news by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-07-06 02:09 · Score: 1

Second job? I don't think they'd mind so long as I didn't have to work during my on-call weekends (which is 1 in every 4).
Writing reports and such will only be done if they are requested for.
Re:This isn't news by tehcyder · 2010-07-06 02:55 · Score: 1

Of course, we don't have people jumping ship after training, either.

How can you stop them?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:This isn't news by mea37 · 2010-07-06 04:09 · Score: 1

"If surfing never came up in the context of TSA work why would they ban it? Hmmm?"
What kind of nonsense question is that? My company blocks many categories of website, specifically because they can't foresee any way for browsing of those sites to come up in the context of our work. They do it to avoid productivity loss. Duh.
"And what they decide is only as appropriate as we, their bosses, say it is. This isn't some private company."
Oh, your one of those people who thinks that being a taxpayer makes you a manager of day-to-day operations for government agencies. Good luck with that. (But since you apparently like the "business" analogy for government, you might look into the typical relationship of stockholders to management in the corporate sector.)
Re:This isn't news by Zerth · 2010-07-06 07:58 · Score: 1

How can you stop them?
Can't stop them, but if you aren't a horrible place to work, they won't cut and run.
I don't think it has happened, but anybody taking a bunch of training and then quiting without notice gets it taken out of their severance. The company will invest in you, but you are expected to stick around a few months to recoup that investment. Leaving due to illness, spouse being reassigned, etc., are usually let slide if they let their boss know right away.
Re:This isn't news by WNight · 2010-07-06 18:08 · Score: 1

My company blocks many categories of website, specifically because they can't foresee any way for browsing of those sites to come up in the context of our work. They do it to avoid productivity loss. Duh.
Yeah, Duh is right. That's always the move of a company run by retarded weasels.
If they're concerned about productivity it'd be far better to make sure you're working than simply to make sure than if you're slacking you at least aren't looking at porn or reading anything controversial.

But since you apparently like the "business" analogy for government
Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company.

Oh, your one of those people who thinks that being a taxpayer makes you a manager of day-to-day operations for government agencies.
No, oversight. Financial and otherwise.
Re:This isn't news by mea37 · 2010-07-08 02:39 · Score: 1

"Yeah, Duh is right. That's always the move of a company run by retarded weasels"
I wasn't aware you were a business executive with knowledge of how to run a successful company. In fact, I'm pretty sure you're just an asshat spouting off on slashdot.
But hey, if you want to believe that the Fortune 500 are run by retarded weasels, then perhaps you should do some graduate research to find out why retarded weasles make such successful businessmen and you don't.
"Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company"
Yes, you said that after comparing what the agency was doing to the practices of a private company. The fail isn't my comprehension; the fail is you.
"No, oversight. Financial and otherwise."
Micromanagement under the guise of oversight is still micromanagement.
Re:This isn't news by WNight · 2010-07-08 09:27 · Score: 1

I wasn't aware you were a business executive with knowledge of how to run a successful company.
No, I'm an admin with an idea of what does not work with regards to net censorship. If you've got employees browsing inappropriate material you're never going to effectively block it so you've got to deal with them directly. Just blocking things is the sign of management who doesn't understand how big the internet is and what a pointless thing they're doing.

if you want to believe that the Fortune 500 are run by retarded weasels, then perhaps you should do some graduate research to find out why retarded weasles make such successful businessmen and you don't.
Successful businessmen, by definition, wouldn't be caught dead doing something so useless.

Comprehension fail. I said they are NOT a private company
Yes, you said that after comparing what the agency was doing to the practices of a private company.
No, I didn't. I said "we're the boss" referring to us (taxpayers presumably) paying for the operations of this department, which is operated on our behalf. We not only foot the bill for but are responsible for the actions of our government.
If I said, "don't water mea37, he's not a plant" that wouldn't mean I'm fond of the plant metaphor for you. It would mean exactly the opposite.

Micromanagement under the guise of oversight is still micromanagement.
Oh noes. Don't criticize the TSA or they won't have time to do such a good job!
It's funny how butthurt you are over the issue of citizen oversight into government. Do you have a cushy (possibly tax-subsidized) job you'd lose if your boss actually started paying attention?

Must not have disloyalty by betterunixthanunix · 2010-07-05 08:16 · Score: 2, Funny

We must not have any disloyalty in the TSA!

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:Must not have disloyalty by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · 2010-07-05 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

That is their prerogative. Like any other workplace they do have the right to block access to whatever material they don't want their employees viewing. I'm in the process of setting up a new proxy for a small office, on it they've asked me to block a fairly large list of sites. I will grant you that the "controversial opinion" aspect has shades of big brother, but in all honesty I have to believe that was bureaucratic shorthand for sites that shouldn't be viewed on a work computer. If you want unfettered access to the internet, do it at home.

--
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Re:Must not have disloyalty by rtb61 · 2010-07-05 12:30 · Score: 1

Yumping yimminy people, grow the fuck up. The only web sites the typical worker should access from work are those one that directly relate to their work, anything, absolutely anything (even personal banking) is a privilege and a perk.
Most companies should not block sites, they should block the whole of the world wide web and only allow access to sites that relate to company business. A whole bunch of you should spend some time on factory production lines, boring, mindless, monotonous work, from which there is very little opportunity to escape and where rapidity and accuracy of your robot like motions will define you income (I have done it and I know how difficult it is over an extended period).
Those whiny mass media sites only care about themselves and don't give a crap about anyone else. There are thousands upon thousands, actually millions upon millions of workers who can access zero, absolutely fucking zero web sites at work, no comfy chair, no air-conditioner, no computer, no tea room chats and, no skiving off upon a regular basis.
Of course it is still really lame and stupid for the TSA to block sites that, hmm, let's guess, are critical of them but, hey, from the way they treat people they really are a total bunch of wankers in desperate need of some customer relations training. I would hand their taser's to people passing through TSA checkpoints and if the TSA agent acts like a dick the customer can tase them (To be honest I think taser are crap and simply a electric whip being using to torture, humiliate and occasionally murder people, rather than being used to save lives).

--
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Re:Must not have disloyalty by ILuvRamen · 2010-07-05 13:23 · Score: 1

You're wasting your time. They obviously blocked slashdot lol

--
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Re:Must not have disloyalty by the_womble · 2010-07-05 19:43 · Score: 1

Or buy a mobile device.
Re:Must not have disloyalty by Trinn · 2010-07-05 21:27 · Score: 1

I have to take some issue with all of this.
*note - the following reply is written from a USA-centric point of view, as I am not as familiar with labor laws in other countries
As far as I know, employers contract with their employees for specific work, and I cannot fathom how, if this work is completed to expectation, employers think they can get away with restricting any (legal, sensible) activity, especially something as benign as surfing the web (okay perhaps there's malware issues, but just don't let idiots use windows then). Employers act as though they own those who work for them, having managed, starting sometime in the 80s, to defang any serious labor protections. This is even worse in new[ish] fields such as software development, network administration, IT, etc., as these fields don't benefit from any pre-existing institutions the way many other fields do. It makes little sense to expect someone to be putting out 100% for the entire time they are at work, *especially* in a skilled field where significant creative tasks are required, again such as software development, etc. I admittedly cannot point directly to any studies at this moment, but I am absolutely certain that those workplaces that treat employees as slaves get far worse productivity than those who abandon the simplistic 'chain of command' model and instead work to support their employees in the tasks they hired them to do.

Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? by PatPending · 2010-07-05 08:17 · Score: 1, Insightful

A bureaucrat? A czar?

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)

Re:Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? by Snarkalicious · 2010-07-05 08:38 · Score: 1

Depends on who they put in charge of the list. I know where I work the dude in charge blocks most of the sites I like to visit (DKos, Wonkette etc etc...I iz a soshalist/muslin), but his faves are fair game (Drudge, RedState etc). It all comes down to one person's perspective and their willingness to view things dispassionately.
Although I suppose my example only holds if you view this as a general issue and not one specifically to do with government.
Meh.
Re:Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? by grimJester · 2010-07-05 08:53 · Score: 1

Depends on who they put in charge of the list. I know where I work the dude in charge blocks most of the sites I like to visit (DKos, Wonkette etc etc...I iz a soshalist/muslin), but his faves are fair game (Drudge, RedState etc). It all comes down to one person's perspective and their willingness to view things dispassionately.
This is the reason I don't like this kind of policy. If they don't want people wasting their time by reading about current issues or news on paid time, that would be fine. If they choose what to allow or ban based on the opinions of the sites, I don't think it kosher. That would mean they are pushing an agenda or at best treating employees differently based on their political views. If it's about people spending their time reading blogs instead of working, why would employees with non-"controversial" opinions be allowed to slack off? Republican supporters don't have to work as hard as the others?

In general I don't think filtering beyond malware sites is a good idea. US:ians are far too willing to let employers dictate what employees do with company equipment. Why should the employer care whether I read Slashdot on a break or when waiting for something? Remove the coffee machine and newspapers if you want people to stare at the roof when they're not actively doing anything.
Re:Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? by sjames · 2010-07-05 10:04 · Score: 1

Rasputin I suspect.
Re:Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? by Dogbertius · 2010-07-05 11:15 · Score: 1

The people writing the checques. Seems reasonable enough. Most businesses filter out content that is obviously completely irrelevant to work-related purposes (game-related sites, pr0n sites, etc), but will leave most other sites, even those with mostly obscene material in place, especially if it's hot news. Assuming that a topic is "controversial", by any definition, might indicate that the company simply doesn't want its employees making a post/opinion on the piece, possibly causing harm to the reputation of their employer.

Next, let's assume that the real issue at hand isn't that a topic is "controversial", but that the site being blocked doesn't seem to take the same stance on the matter as your employer. The fact that sites are being filtered strictly based on what would appear to be conflicting political bias on the parts of your employer and the site in question, seems rather silly.

So long as a site relays the basic facts unaltered, most (intelligent) readers can separate the facts from opinion; filtering out bias, personal annotations, etc along the way. If sites are being filtered by how favorably they report certain things, chances are that the desired effect by the employers is not being achieved, and it only highlights the bias of the company carrying out the blocking/censorship as well.

Just my two bits, but it just seems to be a pointless exercise unless the company simply just wants to prevent people from making post/comments that are out of line with the "official opinion" of the company's execs and causing undue embarrassment and hassle for public relations. A banker making a comment on interest rates and revealing his employer, even if the banker remains anonymous, can have damaging repercussions for the bank he/she works for. And if people are so offended by being only presented news that provides a one-sided skew on events, just wait until you get home to read it, or heaven forbid, we can all just form our own opinions on a subject. I'm pretty sure it's still legal in North America, though I've doubts as to how much that's encouraged by most politicians. :)
Re:Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? by emt377 · 2010-07-05 13:37 · Score: 1

Why should the employer care whether I read Slashdot on a break or when waiting for something? Remove the coffee machine and newspapers if you want people to stare at the roof when they're not actively doing anything.
You're talking about trust and integrity here. Clearly, the TSA doesn't think highly of its own staff in this department.

Damn you Bush!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:17 · Score: 1, Informative

Why are you and Cheney keeping Obama (PBUH) from being inaugurated? Oh, how long must we wait??

Re:Damn you Bush!!! by AnonymousClown · 2010-07-05 08:28 · Score: 0, Troll

Yeah. Talk about a fucking let down.
But, to your typical Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Public, they're going to vote for the other guy who going to promise to "fix" the economy and of course "Oil spill. OIl spill. Obama's Karina" is what we'll hear until we vomit. Unless a miracle happens and things turn around next year, we'll probably see Obama booted out.

--
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Re:Damn you Bush!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:41 · Score: 0

Garbage in, garbage out. If you voted for either of the two big parties, you asked for this. Remember, folks - the only truly "wasted" vote is one for a candidate you don't really like.

Uh. "In the work place" by dmomo · 2010-07-05 08:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

These people are being restricted from visiting certain websites from their job. These websites are not being stifled. This is something worthy of debate, sure.
But, this concerns me less than what was implied via the headline. Was it intentionally sensational? I know there's a character limit on headlines, but i refuse to believe that "employee access to" would be all that hard to fit.

The article... by IANAAC · 2010-07-05 08:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

lists things that any other corporation currently blocks, such as chat/messaging, pretty much any type of "entertainment" website.

Nothing really to see.

Re:The article... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:45 · Score: 0

Nothing really to see.
Or as TSA would put it... Nothing to see here, comrade. Move along!
Re:The article... by Trinn · 2010-07-05 21:32 · Score: 1

As I mentioned earlier, only corporations that seriously do not care about their employee's productivity do such blocking. (or those that have been convinced by filter software companies that somehow such filtering improves productivity). Of course there are a few employees that might spend too much time doing these things if they are available, but those employees, one would hope, would get let go for failing to meet their expectations anyway (and would almost certainly find other ways to not do their work if you take any given thing away). People are simply not capable of 100% output 100% of the time, *especially* in skilled fields, and without anything to turn to to relax, end up being far less productive.

Ideas too Dangerous for the TSA by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:26 · Score: 0

So if all it takes to destroy the Transportation Security Administration is a couple of controversial opinions, how secure is it really?

Do sword fights break out over differing opinions at the water cooler or what?

Re:Ideas too Dangerous for the TSA by BiggerIsBetter · 2010-07-05 17:51 · Score: 1

Do sword fights break out over differing opinions at the water cooler or what?
You have to admit it would be pretty cool if they did. The TSA would gain some much needed respect if they publicized that.

--
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.

oh, please by roman_mir · 2010-07-05 08:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

what is deemed 'controversial opinion' is not explained.

- I'll tell you what it is.

It is ANYTHING at all that somehow differs from the official party (government+big business including military industrial complex) line.

Any of you are following the outcomes of Michael Hastings story about Afghanistan, the story name is The Runaway General and it features opinions of people like Gen. Stanley McChrystal? You know, just the biggest Afghanistan story in US in the past 10 years? The story that questions everything, all of the assumptions the public holds in US and other places about what is happening in Afghanistan? Even a bigger story on the role of military in US politics and who really is in charge?

THAT is a 'controversial opinion', though it is not really an opinion, it is a story based on a bunch of facts. A story, which is written by a rare breed of journalist in USA of today - a real journalist, not a bullshit stenographer. Do you understand why the good general provided all of that information to a reporter? It's NOT because he is not media-savvy, after all in 2003 McChrystal was was selected to deliver nationally televised Pentagon briefings about military operations in Iraq, he IS media savvy.

One thing he learned about media is that when the military says: JUMP, the media JUMPS.

He was totally caught off-guard by an actual reporter, a journalist, who is really doing his job - watching the fuckers and reporting to the public - THAT is their job, not the propaganda bullshit that is fed to the public through the media by politicians, huge businesses and military day to day.

Almost all reporting outlets criticized Haysting for doing what they should have been doing - their fucking job.

So now we see this, TSA is blocking 'controversial opinions'. The President will have his bill and law and methods that will allow him to cut off pieces of the Internet. I fully expect /. to be blocked by TSA there, not that they would read this site anyway.

Land of the FREE, didn't you know? Now Freer than ever.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:oh, please by roman_mir · 2010-07-05 08:37 · Score: 5, Insightful

Forgot to mention, I think the Runaway General is probably THE STORY of the Century, because as a side-effect it has brought up to light the positions that the reporting outfits, the 'journalists' are taking at this point in history.
Look at this piece of shit: Roy Exum. Quote from the garbage he wrote there:

All of the old reporters knew that the unwritten code was one of confidentiality and, back then, those who broke it a time or two didn't ever last very long. Instead of the fun nights after practice, they wound up as some proof readers somewhere who never could figure out why suddenly they were going home to watch Ozzie and Harriett. ...
People who break the code hardly ever last and while Michael Hastings has a marvelous ability with words, his Waterloo will come when he finally realizes of all the hurdles he's faced, when a writer breaks the code the nib on his pen usually doesn't last much longer.
- this piece of shit, vomit inducing, diarrhea spewing fucker believe he is a journalist, a reporter.
Geraldo Rivera - the brown nosing dunce says about Hasting:

putting a rat in an eagle's nest,
- does anybody believe this is a journalist, a reporter who understands what his responsibilities are?
etc.etc.
Do not believe the official news channels, they are simply mouth pieces of those in power, they LIE, they LIE for living, they LIE for access, they do no reporting of truth, the stories the 'report' on are given to them by those in power for various political purposes, mostly as propaganda or 'damage control' pieces. These people are NOT doing any actual journalism and reporting, they do NOT question anything that those in power feed them.
Those are NOT controversial opinions and will not be blocked by the TSA.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:oh, please by Vinegar+Joe · 2010-07-05 08:39 · Score: 1

Michael Yon was writing about the McChrystal problem months ago and no one on the Left saw anything wrong until Rolling Stone printed what was basically a gossip piece. Problems with ROE and strategy were ignored......the only thing that is seen as important is that McChrystal (and staff) wasn't kissing Obama and Biden's asses.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/

--
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Re:oh, please by jofny · 2010-07-05 08:51 · Score: 1

I fully expect /. to be blocked by TSA there
Ionno - No one gave a crap that I looked at Slashdot when I worked there. Good job taking a poorly worded bureaucratic ass-covering and attributing Dan Brown levels of +eleventy-billion conspiracy powers to it. And feel free to jump to my website, resume, art site, whatever for a pretty decent counter-example to your a$$-hattery here.

//God, some people, they do need babysitters and soft walls.
Re:oh, please by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:55 · Score: 0

I think the Runaway General is probably THE STORY of the Century
Hyperbole much? You think it was a big deal, we get it.
Re:oh, please by roman_mir · 2010-07-05 08:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

You are so full of stinking shit. Hasting's piece is not about the McChrystal problem, it is much bigger than that, it is about the power struggle between military command and the politicians, or in fact what power struggle? The PR machine of the military is almost the same size as the State Department (something like 26thousand people vs 32thousand).
It is not about the General and in fact who gives a fuck if McChrystal kisses ass at all? It is about the fact that McChrystal himself does not believe Afghanistan is winnable, that military command does not believe it, that politicians should know it, that military expects the civilian politicians to jump to their words just as much as the current media does today, and they do, ffs. McChrystal did the SAME fucking thing when he leaked the story on needing more troops in Afghanistan, or more importantly, he wanted to force the hand of the President and he SUCCEEDED and he got his troops.
McChrystal should have been fired right THEN and THERE for getting into politics, for trying and in fact for setting policy rather than doing what he is told by the Chief.
Why am I speaking to you? I am not speaking to you, I am writing this for the rest of /. but your comment is bullshit.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:oh, please by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 09:08 · Score: 0, Insightful

Whoever moded the parent comment as Flamebait is a nimrod, hates freedoms and takes form over function in the worst sense of the word.
Re:oh, please by fermion · 2010-07-05 09:50 · Score: 1

Which is absolutely besides the point. This is not a college. These people are not being paid to form an opinion. These people are largely being paid to complete a task.
Here is the problem. The TSA has contributed greatly to the US deficit, so we have to make sure it serves some purpose. We got along without for 200 years, and then all of the sudden we had to become a socialist state as we entered the 21st century. While I know that people have to work, and I have no issue with job programs, especially those like the TSA that really don't cost that much money in real terms(the indirect costs, however, are astronomical), I don't really see that the jobs in these jobs programs are reading the news blog. We already have people in the FBI and CIA that are paid to do that.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:oh, please by Sir_Lewk · 2010-07-05 11:11 · Score: 1

Oh no need. I think I've just witnessed a pretty standard example of the fine people skills people who work at the TSA often have.

--
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
Re:oh, please by gillbates · 2010-07-05 12:49 · Score: 1

I know its OT, but he could have spared the General his job. I don't consider the sensationalist, unsubstantiated style to be professional journalism:
The general's staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs
Nope, nothing but the facts there.

--
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Re:oh, please by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-06 03:03 · Score: 0

Wow, you are reading into this way too much. It's merely a web content filter, which is quite reasonable for an employer to set up to make sure the employees aren't up to no-good while at work. It's not some secret attempt at quelching dissent at TSA. Employees can leave work and visit any site they want.

Violates point of 1st Amendment by PatPending · 2010-07-05 08:27 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech!.

What has happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"

And what has happened to the promise of the most open and transparent in history?

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)

Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by canajin56 · 2010-07-05 08:33 · Score: 1

So somebody's free speech is being violated because a government agency doesn't want people reading Slashdot when they're supposed to be working? Are you utterly against workplaces trying to get their employees to not browse the web? Or just the government?

--
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by DesScorp · 2010-07-05 08:40 · Score: 0, Troll

The point of the 1st Amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech!.
What has happened to "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it?"
And what has happened to the promise of the most open and transparent in history?
I'm no supporter of the Obama Administration, but in this case, so what?
The government isn't banning what YOU can read. It's controlling what's on TSA workstations. Considering how much people screw off on company time (and in this case, it's taxpayer time), I'd just as soon see government agencies go back to dumb terminals for things like email and creating/editing documents, and take Internet access out of the equation completely. I work in aviation, and the vast majority of TSA employees are essentially beat cops... except their beat is your luggage. Most of them have no need for access to a computer at all.

--
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Beelzebud · 2010-07-05 08:42 · Score: 1

The 1st amendment isn't there to protect your right to reading web pages while you're supposed to be working. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on work, rather than browsing slashdot. You can do that on your own time...
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Snarkalicious · 2010-07-05 08:45 · Score: 1

Can still be viewed from home, at the public library, via the hotspot from a 7 dollar-a-coffee shop and so on.
The people in charge of monitoring transportation have better things to do than cruise Free Republic or HuffPo on the tax-payer dime, anyhow.
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by PatPending · 2010-07-05 08:48 · Score: 1

So somebody's free speech is being violated because a government agency doesn't want people reading Slashdot when they're supposed to be working? Are you utterly against workplaces trying to get their employees to not browse the web? Or just the government?
I'm against a government bureaucrat or czar or whomever subjectively mandating what is 'controversial opinion.'
And why isn't the person (or persons) responsible for this explicitly identified, along with the criteria?

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by bsDaemon · 2010-07-05 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

No one is preventing people from speaking as they please and publishing their opinions. They're blocking their employees from wasting time at work reading bullshit websites. As TSA employees are Government employees, and are therefor working on your dime, don't you at least want to get your money's worth out of them? Sure, it would probably be better if we didn't have them on the payroll anyway and just did away with the department as it's mostly political eyewash designed to make people feel safer rather than be safer, but that's another story all together. But hey, it's more fun to shout about fascist nazi communist censors, isn't it?
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Teun · 2010-07-05 10:33 · Score: 1

That's very narrow view.
For example in my country we don't so much have Freedom of Speech but we have Freedom of Information.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Teun · 2010-07-05 10:39 · Score: 1

They are not blocking their employees from reading bullshit websites.
They are blocking them from certain websites and the question is who is making the distinction and based on what?

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 12:30 · Score: 0

Yeah but nobody gives a shit about your little country.
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by TouchAndGo · 2010-07-05 13:26 · Score: 1

Who really cares? Are you rallying against every corporate entity that decides what their employees can view on their work computers? Or is it a different standard because it's a government job?
They're fully within their rights to pick and choose what you can view on their computers.
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 14:06 · Score: 0

Unless you are the person in charge of TSA why would that concern you?
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by emt377 · 2010-07-05 14:24 · Score: 1

So somebody's free speech is being violated because a government agency doesn't want people reading Slashdot when they're supposed to be working? Are you utterly against workplaces trying to get their employees to not browse the web? Or just the government?
As long as they get their job done, who cares what they read, what radio station they listen to, podcasts, whatever. As long as it doesn't interfere with their job. People also have and need breaks. As an employer myself I only block sites that are illegal or can be construed as workplace harassment - like porn, and only tell my employees they can't click through EULAs or pretend to represent the company. Otherwise I recognize they are human beings who exist in a social context, and that context is to a large extent mediated by the net. If you treat people like mindless drones, surprise - that's what you get. Treat your employees like shit and you'll be hiring from the bottom of the talent pool. Of course, the TSA practically wrote the book on that...
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by master_p · 2010-07-05 21:22 · Score: 1

Don't employees have the right to surf the internet for a couple of minutes per working day? they are human, you know. Not robots. They can't work each minute for 8 hours a day.
Yes, wasting time is part of the work day. Is it so unethical?
In the same light, why companies don't block talking to colleagues and going to the bathroom? it should be that whoever goes to the bathroom more than two times per day should be fired. And whoever takes launch for more than 10 minutes should also be fired.
Would you like that? I don't think so. We are humans, not robot work slaves.
If an employee is proven not to be productive in the long run, then something must be done about him. But banning each and every bit of time wasting? inhuman!!!
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Trinn · 2010-07-05 21:37 · Score: 1

I am very much against workplaces trying to get their employees not to browse the web. Just as I am against things such as drug testing. If an employee is being unproductive, it should be pretty damn obvious to their manager and something should/would be done about it; if not, then there should be no problem. How is this not obvious?
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment by Teun · 2010-07-05 23:40 · Score: 1

There is a different standard for government jobs.
When communicating with their servants the government has to be very careful to declare certain political viewpoints controversial.
Before you know you could have a whole department having a particular political leaning, like in the old Soviet block you had to be a member of the party to get on.
Not exactly democratic!

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."

Chem Trails!!!! by Rick+Richardson · 2010-07-05 08:34 · Score: 1

Chem Trails!!!!

Re:Chem Trails!!!! by wmbetts · 2010-07-05 12:56 · Score: 1

I should mod you insightful!

--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware

Sounds like they're instituting "WebSense". by khasim · 2010-07-05 08:34 · Score: 3, Informative

We use it where I work and it has those same categories.

The annoying thing is that it blocks on-line betting sites as "gaming" in the same category as "zero punctuation".

Re:Sounds like they're instituting "WebSense". by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 10:16 · Score: 0

So which one are you complaining about not being able to get to?
Re:Sounds like they're instituting "WebSense". by Skuld-Chan · 2010-07-05 10:16 · Score: 1

That's actually one really cool thing about having Flash on Android Froyo - Zero Punctuation actually works pretty well with it.
Smart phones are just another method of "I'll still view the site anyhow whether you like it or not".
Re:Sounds like they're instituting "WebSense". by QuantumRiff · 2010-07-05 13:57 · Score: 1

We use it too.. Weird thing, it seems to block wikileaks. I guess since were a financial firm, thats good for the company, but I hope it doesn't dampen whisleblowing at the TSA..

--

What are we going to do tonight Brain?

Maybe it's not by bugs2squash · 2010-07-05 08:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

to stop the TSA officers watching, but to prevent TSA officers from posting anything "controversial". An unguarded post in a racially charged forum would be damaging.

--
Nullius in verba

Re:Maybe it's not by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-07-05 09:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

That is usually part of the rationale for the inclusion of categories like "controversial" and "hate/violence" in institutional filterware. If somebody discovers posts from an employee, timestamped during working hours, somewhere legal-but-unsavory you have just entered the world of extremely embarrassing bad PR. This is true in corporate, and probably goes double(or more) for the TSA.

You block porn because it's a timesucker, because it has some cool malware, and because if that creepy guy in sales is masturbating audibly you are probably going to get a pile of harassment lawsuits.

You block personals/dating/facebook/myspace/etc. because they are massive timesuckers(and for a broader demographic than porn) and can inject an extra dose of ghastly interpersonal drama if you aren't lucky.

Gambling, again, timesucker/malware.

Can you imagine the hell that some bumbling middle-manager would be made to pay if some TSA flunky turned out to be posting on stormfront.org or revolutionmuslim.com during working hours? It would be an utter no-win. Porn, at least, is treated as a basically apolitical symptom of waste and incompetence. Having to say, with a straight face, that the "racial realists" on staff definitely aren't contributing to an even more hostile flying atmosphere for anybody darker than hitler; or attempting to claim that that yours must be the friendly and apolitical islam enthusiasts would be difficult and probably career-limiting. Given the size, and low standards, of the TSA, it is pretty much 100% that there is at least one of each(though probably skewed a bit toward the "shallow end of the white supremacist gene pool, which is why I'm dressed as a rentacop and harassing people about carry-on liquids" side). I'm wholly unsurprised that TSA management doesn't want anything politically embarrassing to happen during work hours.
Re:Maybe it's not by master_p · 2010-07-05 21:18 · Score: 1

Can you imagine the hell that some bumbling middle-manager would be made to pay if some TSA flunky turned out to be posting on stormfront.org or revolutionmuslim.com during working hours? It would be an utter no-win.
First of all, why not? why should a company be responsible for what its personnel posts? what if the post is positive about the company?

Secondly, why not simply fire the employee who posts negative comments online?

There is a lot more to banning sites than you imagine. The establishment wants the people scared. Do you think that an employee of a company that doesn't allow him to post in "controversial" sites will dare post anything from his home in the same sites? he will be scared to death.
Re:Maybe it's not by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 23:28 · Score: 0

That is usually part of the rationale for the inclusion of categories like "controversial" and "hate/violence" in institutional filterware. If somebody discovers posts from an employee, timestamped during working hours, somewhere legal-but-unsavory you have just entered the world of extremely embarrassing bad PR. This is true in corporate, and probably goes double(or more) for the TSA.
You block porn because it's a timesucker, because it has some cool malware, and because if that creepy guy in sales is masturbating audibly you are probably going to get a pile of harassment lawsuits.
You block personals/dating/facebook/myspace/etc. because they are massive timesuckers(and for a broader demographic than porn) and can inject an extra dose of ghastly interpersonal drama if you aren't lucky.
Gambling, again, timesucker/malware.
Can you imagine the hell that some bumbling middle-manager would be made to pay if some TSA flunky turned out to be posting on stormfront.org or revolutionmuslim.com during working hours? It would be an utter no-win. Porn, at least, is treated as a basically apolitical symptom of waste and incompetence. Having to say, with a straight face, that the "racial realists" on staff definitely aren't contributing to an even more hostile flying atmosphere for anybody darker than hitler; or attempting to claim that that yours must be the friendly and apolitical islam enthusiasts would be difficult and probably career-limiting. Given the size, and low standards, of the TSA, it is pretty much 100% that there is at least one of each(though probably skewed a bit toward the "shallow end of the white supremacist gene pool, which is why I'm dressed as a rentacop and harassing people about carry-on liquids" side). I'm wholly unsurprised that TSA management doesn't want anything politically embarrassing to happen during work hours.

That is usually part of the rationale for the inclusion of categories like "controversial" and "hate/violence" in institutional filterware. If somebody discovers posts from an employee, timestamped during working hours, somewhere legal-but-unsavory you have just entered the world of extremely embarrassing bad PR. This is true in corporate, and probably goes double(or more) for the TSA.
You block porn because it's a timesucker, because it has some cool malware, and because if that creepy guy in sales is masturbating audibly you are probably going to get a pile of harassment lawsuits.
You block personals/dating/facebook/myspace/etc. because they are massive timesuckers(and for a broader demographic than porn) and can inject an extra dose of ghastly interpersonal drama if you aren't lucky.
Gambling, again, timesucker/malware.
Can you imagine the hell that some bumbling middle-manager would be made to pay if some TSA flunky turned out to be posting on stormfront.org or revolutionmuslim.com during working hours? It would be an utter no-win. Porn, at least, is treated as a basically apolitical symptom of waste and incompetence. Having to say, with a straight face, that the "racial realists" on staff definitely aren't contributing to an even more hostile flying atmosphere for anybody darker than hitler; or attempting to claim that that yours must be the friendly and apolitical islam enthusiasts would be difficult and probably career-limiting. Given the size, and low standards, of the TSA, it is pretty much 100% that there is at least one of each(though probably skewed a bit toward the "shallow end of the white supremacist gene pool, which is why I'm dressed as a rentacop and harassing people about carry-on liquids" side). I'm wholly unsurprised that TSA management doesn't want anything politically embarrassing to happen during work hours.

That is usually part of the rationale for the inclusion of categories like "controversial" and "hate/violence" in institutional filterware. If somebody discovers posts from an employee, timestamped during working hours, somewhe
Re:Maybe it's not by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-07-05 23:29 · Score: 1

The problem for the TSA, in the hypothetical instances that I suggested, is not whether or not the posts are positive. I see no reason to pay people to post one way or the other on the clock; but would frown on any off-the-clock restrictions.

The problem is what patronizing sites like that suggests about the TSA staff in question. If you are a pseudo-law-enforcement division with delusions of power and strong public presumption of incompetence, the public has every reason to be concerned by evidence that you have nests of White Power enthusiasts, muslim radicals, or both on staff. Either suggests that your staffing standards really aren't up to the requirements of your organizational goals.
Re:Maybe it's not by tehcyder · 2010-07-06 03:02 · Score: 1

You block porn because it's a timesucker, because it has some cool malware, and because if that creepy guy in sales is masturbating audibly you are probably going to get a pile of harassment lawsuits.

Goddammit, I thought my door was shut...hold on.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Not controversial at all by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:38 · Score: 1, Insightful

Shame on TSA for leaving "controversial opinion" up to the imagination, but the move itself - especially the rest of it - is not controversial at all. I say "bravo" to taxpayer dollars not paying for somebody at the TSA to surf porn or gamble online all day. Look at it this way: If the TSA did not enforce an acceptable use policy, we would in short order be reading sensationalized stories about gross negligence and waste of taxpayer money. People would be outraged about that, too, and justifiably so.

Attention media outlets regarding your cake: 1. Have it. 2. Eat it. - Choose only one.

Hey, it's their computers, their network... by stevegee58 · 2010-07-05 08:39 · Score: 1

...surf anything you want on your own time on your own computer.

Re:Hey, it's their computers, their network... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 09:23 · Score: 0

Well, if I was US citizen I would claim it's MY computer (since I would have paid for it). And if MY computer selectively filters some political messages while leaving others unfiltered I might have a little problem with it.
But hey, it's not my government... although sometimes I wonder how stupid folks are at your side of the pond.

Wha? by headhot · 2010-07-05 08:40 · Score: 1

TSA agents can read?

Re:Wha? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 08:52 · Score: 0

My thought exactly. I assumed they used defrosted Cro-Magnon slaves for most of their staffing needs. :)

Video in second link by AnonymousClown · 2010-07-05 08:41 · Score: 2

Did anyone watch the video attached to the second link?

I can attest to some of the attitudes by the TSA. I got the dreaded 'SSSS' on my boarding pass once and I had to fly - if I were a terrorist, i would have just walked out, but I guess that never occurred to the TSA or I'm goddamned brilliant and the President should make me the head of the HMS. Anyway, TSA agent orders me into this clear plastic 3 sided booth. What I was in there for I don't know. Now, said booth acts like a big ear. Meaning, every noise in the airport was amplified by that damn thing so I had a hard time hearing and I'm freaking out as to why I'm in this booth. Said TSA agent says something to me and I don't move and make a gesture that I can't hear. She then throws a huge hissy fit and starts screaming at me.

Second thing. In the video, the TSA says that "only" 110,000 people complained about the backscatter x-ray out of the millions that fly. I immediately thought of Catbert in the Dilbert cartoons.

I'm sure any complaints were either ignored and other people are just too scared to complain for fear of retribution from the TSA.

The TSA says there isn't any of that sort of thing, but their credibility isn't all that great..

--
RIP America

July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001

Re:Video in second link by IANAAC · 2010-07-05 09:35 · Score: 1

I got the dreaded 'SSSS' on my boarding pass once and I had to fly

I got one of those one time too, but I knew exactly why. My mom was pretty much on her deathbed and I bought a ticket at the airport a couple of hours before boarding.
Easy enough to figure out, but I realize not all cases are as easy to know.
Did you find out why you were given that type of boarding pass? You could have asked before you ever hit security and probably been prepared for what would happen. And they most likely would have told you the reason.
Look on the bright side: if you ever get another "SSSS" boarding pass, you'll know more or less what to expect.
As far as the x-rays go... let 'em have at it, as far as I'm concerned. If they get their jollies out of looking at my blurry junk, oh well. It's a human body. *shrug*

By the sound of it... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-07-05 08:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

The TSA just implemented some off-the-shelf web filtering proxy product, presumably to try to claw back some productivity from their ill-trained, ill-motivated, and generally unimpressive staff.

That list of bland, boilerplate categories just screams "generic-filterware". I'm not 100% positive which; but it sounds a lot like websense.

Don't get me wrong, the TSA is a boil on the ass of the body politic; but the fact that their cube drones are now being subjected to the same online annoyances as cube drones in thousands of other corporate, educational, and government setups strikes me as a matter of absolutely no relevance to my rights(except in that, if the TSA employees are forced to do less porn surfing, they might get some work done, and their work would probably damage my rights somehow).

Re:By the sound of it... by lavagolemking · 2010-07-05 09:04 · Score: 1

(except in that, if the TSA employees are forced to do less porn surfing, they might get some work done, and their work would probably damage my rights somehow)
Or they'll just look more even thoroughly through people's belongings to get a better "glimpse" at travelers' underwear.
Re:By the sound of it... by PatPending · 2010-07-05 09:06 · Score: 1

(except in that, if the TSA employees are forced to do less porn surfing, they might get some work done, and their work would probably damage my rights somehow).
TSA employees get mandated free porn surfing at work now that they have full body scanners.

--
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Re:By the sound of it... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2010-07-05 09:21 · Score: 1

"Nine times out of ten it's an electric razor, but every once in a while... it's a dildo. Of course it's company policy never to, imply ownership in the event of a dildo... always use the indefinite article a dildo, never your dildo."

So what? by cts5678 · 2010-07-05 08:43 · Score: 1

If it's not work-related, they don't need to be going there, same as at my non-governmental job. Lame.

Re:Uh. "In the work place" by Culture20 · 2010-07-05 08:57 · Score: 1

But I bet "work" is where TSA agents access the web the most, if not exclusively. This could seriously create a selective education within the TSA, allowing the agents to believe the exact opposite of what the rest of the population believes. About what? I don't know, but I'm sure we'll find out in 2011-2012.

Obvious by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 09:06 · Score: 0

They're blocking the sites of shampoo manufacturers and their products.

3 oz. or less, because the terrorists hate us for our soft, manageable hair.

Missing the point by copponex · 2010-07-05 09:10 · Score: 1

Asking whether McChrystal was an ineffective military leader in Afghanistan is no different than judging Marshall Sergei Sokolov when he commanded Russian forces there in the 80s. It completely misses the real question: why does anyone think military aggression in the middle east will reduce terrorism?

Michael's site perfectly encapsulates the sheer irony of the war. One needs only a little imagination to extract the following sentiment: "God bless you and our troops in the war against those islamic fascists!" As if a few billion dollars a month worth of destruction in order to force our way of life on the Afghan people isn't fascism...

Re:Missing the point by the_womble · 2010-07-05 19:54 · Score: 1

As the Afghan way of life seems to be based on intolerance, blood feuds, petty local dictatorships, the oppression of women and other such charming traditions, I am not overly impressed by their right to keep it.
On the other hand, the best chance they had to get away from that was probably the communist government that the Americans and their Middle Eastern allies created the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and various other nasties to fight.
Re:Missing the point by copponex · 2010-07-06 05:39 · Score: 1

As the Afghan way of life seems to be based on intolerance, blood feuds, petty local dictatorships, the oppression of women and other such charming traditions, I am not overly impressed by their right to keep it.
And in what ways is this any different from the American way of life in the 1800s? Do you think it would have helped if Spain had somehow won the war and forced their way of life on us at the turn of the century?

This is "Stuff that matters" ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 09:19 · Score: 0

Sorry for the anon - tried to login and the server keeps puking.

Wow, this is one of the worst bits of strawman I've seen in a while. OP -1 mod for Flamebait..

Re:Uh. "In the work place" by colonelquesadilla · 2010-07-05 09:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

But I bet "work" is where TSA agents access the web the most, if not exclusively.

What basis do you have for assuming that TSA agents don't have internet at home or smart phones? That seems like an absolutely bizarre assumption.

--
It's either false dichotomies, or the terrorists win, you decide.

Now we need a new HTTP Status code by merc · 2010-07-05 09:46 · Score: 1

418 Controversial content

The characteristics of the content have been determined to be too controversial.

--
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.

Blocking sites hmm... by LittlePud · 2010-07-05 09:46 · Score: 1

Is Bruce Scheiner's blog on the blocked list?

Is Schneier on the list? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 09:54 · Score: 0

They probably thought Bruce Schneier was becoming too well known inside the organization:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/scene_from_an_a.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/another_scene_f.html

Re:Uh. "In the work place" by Vellmont · 2010-07-05 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is something worthy of debate, sure.
But, this concerns me less than what was implied via the headline.

Huh? What's implied by the headline "TSA Internally Blocking Websites With 'Controversial Opinions'"? Looking through the discussion, it seems you're essentially manufacturing this confusion, since nobody is actually confused by the headline.

--
AccountKiller

FUCK THE TSA! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 10:11 · Score: 0

FUCK THE TSA!

Re:FUCK THE TSA! by ScrewMaster · 2010-07-05 14:33 · Score: 1

FUCK THE TSA!
I wouldn't fuck 'em with yours.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Interesting what's not on the list. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 10:26 · Score: 0

Things like surfing for porn, goofing off, generally wasting taxpayer time, and so on are not on the list. So that's still allowed?

Not entirely surprising, that. But altough, as other people have pointed out, as a work organisation it's not unreasonable to block some things for employees on the premises they can bloody well do that at home, (at least in some circles; elsewhere the employees would scream bloody murder and in fact all the places I've worked so far had no internet filtering technology whatsoever), I think that this list is very curious. But if you think about it, it stands to reason, as far as the TSA does, anyway.

The TSA is basically an organisation of goons federalised and made unfirable, doing a lot of objectionable and controversial things in the name of security, and now internally taking anything the boss might not like and sticking their electronic fingers in their ears, having their equipment go "I can't HEAR you!" by blocking access to sites that don't toe the party line. It's a rather sneaky and subversive variant of the old police or bureaucratic power abuse shtick: This time it's built right into the infrastructure.

I can't tell you what part I find the most worrisome. That Obama hasn't kicked them all out or right into federal prison yet? You'd think he could.

Re:Interesting what's not on the list. by tehcyder · 2010-07-06 03:08 · Score: 1

Things like surfing for porn, goofing off, generally wasting taxpayer time, and so on are not on the list. So that's still allowed?

I somehow doubt that was ever actually allowed.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

well by Charliemopps · 2010-07-05 10:27 · Score: 1

I'd argue that much of what the TSA does is rather controversial. Are they blocking their own websites?

Read TFA by DynaSoar · 2010-07-05 10:45 · Score: 1

The point is not about controlling access to controversial opinions, it's about controlling access to things that people tend to waste a lot of time on.

The categories being blocked are:
Chat/Messaging
Controversial opinion
Criminal activity
Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
Gaming

I'll take a Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious for $500, Alex.

(The answer is, "They're busy playing around on the web at work.")

That would be "Why hasn't the TSA caught many bad guys," Alex.

As to why CBS felt it needed to focus on the 'controversial opinion' point, it's probably because they thought they'd get more attention going with the censorship slant rather than the wasting-billions-of-dollars-playing-games slant. But once it's in context, the responses probably fall into the 'you mean they haven't yet?' and 'well, DUH!' categories. And as far as 'obtaining an internal email' there's a whole lot of TSABroadcast publically available on the web. It's almost certainly the channel of choice for 'All Employees' traffic such as TFA.

--
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B

Hey! If you work for the TSA: by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 10:58 · Score: 0

Someone find out if http://www.schneier.com is blocked there !

Mr. Schneier is a security consultant who has been an outspoken critic of many of the TSA's policies, calling them "security theatre". I'd bet ten bucks that the TSA has censored his blog for their employees.

Also in the article by bkgood · 2010-07-05 11:09 · Score: 1

A 2006 investigation by the Discover America Partnership found that tourism to America had sunk due to “a climate of fear and frustration that is turning away foreign business and leisure travelers from visiting the United States and damaging America’s image abroad.” No less than a third of tourists vowed never to return to America after experiencing the treatment of Homeland Security officials at ports of entry.

Indeed, it's bad enough as a citizen; I can't begin to imagine how it is as a foreigner. On returning from vacation from Montreal (flew as I live in the midwest), I couldn't believe the amount of grief the woman at border patrol was giving me. I'm an American citizen, I'm innocent until proven guilty and I certainly can't be compelled to incriminate myself, so stop treating me like a criminal. Of course, if I were to mention any of that, I'd immediately be further probed, so I was polite and answered her questions. Some beacon-of-freedom country this is, and electing the so-called man and party of change to power hasn't seemed to help.
Anyway, it was bad for me, as an American citizen. I completely understand when friends abroad hesitate to come to the US.

Re:Also in the article by IANAAC · 2010-07-05 13:27 · Score: 1

I couldn't believe the amount of grief the woman at border patrol was giving me. I'm an American citizen...

Just out of curiosity, what kind of grief did she give you? At least in my experience, I've gotten grief going into many different places in Europe, as well as grief on return to the US. Probably the worst was both leaving South Africa (their customs pulled me out of line due to something they saw in the luggage scan - yep, the enameled ostrich egg we all seem to want to bring back home!), as well as entry into the US (I had a hard time convincing them that I did *not* go on a safari and really did spend my whole time on a beach in Cape Town).
On the other hand, I've also breezed through customs in the same places with some excellent agents. I chalk it up to a bad day for the customs agent and just deal with it. It's over soon enough.
Re:Also in the article by tehcyder · 2010-07-06 03:15 · Score: 1

As a UK citizen who has recently visited the US, I have to say how friendly, polite and helpful all the security people were compared with the sour-faced knuckle-dragging little Hitlers over here.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Alex Jones is a nutjob by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 11:13 · Score: 0

I'm an IT geek who is also an open carrier, my side arm is open carried in a holster, and can tell you Alex Jones is a complete nutjob. Nobody in the firearms community likes the guy's opinions or site. Take some time to read the site, he is a fear mongering idiot. "VACCINES CAUSE AUTISM! WE'RE UNDER 1984 CONTROLS!!! TIN FOIL HAT!!"

The editors should've done their job and at least looked at who the article was sourcing, Alex Jones is not a credible source.

Re:Alex Jones is a nutjob by ScrewMaster · 2010-07-05 14:37 · Score: 1

The editors should've done their job and at least looked at who the article was sourcing,
I had someone pass me a link to an article claiming that President Obama has ties to terrorist organizations. I backtracked the link and found the article came from a white supremacist site (serious loonies ... let's just say that the sky is not blue in their world.) I pointed that out to the person who sent it: they were shocked, and promised to be more vigilant in the future. It does pay to check your sources.

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Almost certainly overblown by eyrieowl · 2010-07-05 11:58 · Score: 1

The list in the memo sounds a lot like (although not exactly the same as) Websense categories. My guess is the folks at TSA aren't deciding what "controversial opinion" is, but are delegating that to some company they've contracted their web-filtering to. And my guess is that it would be the category which contains things like websites associated with KKK, Aryan Nation, ALF, and other groups with extreme positions. I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt it's much different than what nearly any major corporation is doing that has signed up for some web-filtering service.

Of course, the credibility of the summary is GREATLY diminished by referencing Alex Jones's conspiracy-mongering website.

So.. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 13:09 · Score: 0

They made a career out of minor but annoying liberty-infringements for an organization that was built on desperate, paranoid hand waving and find themselves subjected to minor but annoying liberty-infringements invented out of desperate, paranoid hand waving.

Where did I leave that little violin..?

Re:Uh. "In the work place" by Culture20 · 2010-07-05 14:07 · Score: 1

What basis do you have for assuming that TSA agents don't have internet at home or smart phones?

I assume they are poor, stupid, and they have more free time to surf at work than at home.

Controversial? by ScrewMaster · 2010-07-05 14:32 · Score: 1

Hey TSA ... I got your "controversial opinion" right here!

--
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.

Re:Uh. "In the work place" by Miseph · 2010-07-05 17:58 · Score: 1

So, you're a total prick?

And let's just say you're right, and everyone who works for TSA is stupid and poor. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but internet access is cheap and easy to get, so cheap and easy that even the poor and stupid are well-represented on the internet. Just check out some YouTube comments and you'll see what I mean.

--
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.

Why are these computers even on the internet? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-07-05 22:46 · Score: 0

Why are these computers even on the internet?
Seriously? Why?

If you are at work and your job doesn't involve the public internet or research of some type, why would those systems be on the internet at all? Stupid.

If you are inside a hospital working, that PC should not be on the internet either. I'm not talking about the patient network, rather the "corporate" network for the hospital. None of those systems should be on the internet. Operating room PCs probably shouldn't be on any network.

Re:Uh. "In the work place" by Culture20 · 2010-07-06 02:30 · Score: 1

"and they have more free time to surf at work than at home." The third part carries more weight than the first two. I still know people who won't buy internet access "because I get it free at work". I'm sure the private sector is cracking down on non-productive employees, but government work is government work.

Slashdot Mirror

TSA Internally Blocking Websites With 'Controversial Opinions'

147 comments