Internet Censorship - First Shot Across the Bow?

[Foxfyre]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

 

[peach174]

I certainly do.
Sure wouln't want those progressives getting main stream ideas into their heads. Oh and even worse CONSERVITIAVE ideas . Why they might start to think about things. How terrible!!
But yeh - That's what it's all about -complete control- complete communism

 

[Immanuel]

Why shouldn't the TSA block certain websites from their computers? In fact, why are government employees on these websites during working hours in the first place? Why aren't porn sites listed... hmm, never mind, we don't want to restrict the sites the supervisors visit in their personal offices.

Immie

 

[Valerie]

It's not like people don't still have access to controversial opinion on the internet, right?

Employers can restrict what their workers access from their work computers. There are other legitimate reasons for certain servers not connecting to certain sites besides disallowing access to the info itself, such as restricting any connection whatsoever for security purposes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This is typical policy at most companies. Where I work there are sites that are blocked. I don't know what TSA considers to be "controversial opinion," but this is not alarming to me. It's not like TSA employees can't read controversial material on the Net when they go home.

 

[masquerade]

I do believe the current administation will do whatever they can to gain control of the internet. That being said, this censorship for TSA employess does not come as a surprise to me. Where I work, certain sites have been blocked for years.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm not questioning at all a practice of blocking certain sites from access by employees using company computers. That actually makes good sense I suppose if you can't trust your people to demonstrate integrity when working for you. I've never worked anywhere for long that I wasn't trusted to get my work done and thus I had no restrictions on the computer. The day the restrictions went on was the day I quit. But then I don't work well without complete freedom. I want to the boss to tell me what he wants accomplished and when he needs it done, and then leave me alone to figure out how to do it. I've been blessed with a lot of bosses who were like that.

But I also accept that some are comfortable with more structure than that, and some jobs don't lend themselves to that kind of freedom. When guys are on a shift governed by a clock, you don't want them stealing a lot of time from the company.

BUT. . . .when the 'restricted sites' include 'controversial opinion sites' but not all non work related sites, that just strikes me as a bit more sinister than restricting the computer to work related activities.

 

[Foxfyre]

And now the entertainment world is getting into internet bashing too

Prince: the internet's completely over
By Emma Barnett, Technology and Digital Media Correspondent
06 Jul 2010

Prince, the 52-year-old music icon has pronounced the internet dead, refusing to use any digital platforms to distribute his music.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers Photo: REX FEATURES
Instead the artist has opted to release his latest album 20Ten in CD format only as a cover-mount free giveaway with The Daily Mirror this weekend.

Talking to The Mirror, Prince said: “The internet is completely over. I don’t see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won’t pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can’t get it.”

He went on to say: “The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers: “All these computers and digital gadgets are no good.

"They just fill your head with numbers and that cant be good for you.”
Prince: the internet's completely over - Telegraph

 

[Valerie]

I'm not questioning at all a practice of blocking certain sites from access by employees using company computers. That actually makes good sense I suppose if you can't trust your people to demonstrate integrity when working for you. I've never worked anywhere for long that I wasn't trusted to get my work done and thus I had no restrictions on the computer. The day the restrictions went on was the day I quit. But then I don't work well without complete freedom. I want to the boss to tell me what he wants accomplished and when he needs it done, and then leave me alone to figure out how to do it. I've been blessed with a lot of bosses who were like that.

But I also accept that some are comfortable with more structure than that, and some jobs don't lend themselves to that kind of freedom. When guys are on a shift governed by a clock, you don't want them stealing a lot of time from the company.

BUT. . . .when the 'restricted sites' include 'controversial opinion sites' but not all non work related sites, that just strikes me as a bit more sinister than restricting the computer to work related activities.

I think it's because some servers have to defend themselves from something else more sinister and it's not at all personal.

 

[editec]

According to people I know who work in government offices, this has been going on for at least ten years.

Why is it sudenly a problem?

Don't employers all reserve the right to limit what people can read online at work?

 

[Valerie]

And now the entertainment world is getting into internet bashing too

Prince: the internet's completely over
By Emma Barnett, Technology and Digital Media Correspondent
06 Jul 2010

Prince, the 52-year-old music icon has pronounced the internet dead, refusing to use any digital platforms to distribute his music.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers Photo: REX FEATURES
Instead the artist has opted to release his latest album 20Ten in CD format only as a cover-mount free giveaway with The Daily Mirror this weekend.

Talking to The Mirror, Prince said: “The internet is completely over. I don’t see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won’t pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can’t get it.”

He went on to say: “The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers: “All these computers and digital gadgets are no good.

"They just fill your head with numbers and that cant be good for you.”
Prince: the internet's completely over - Telegraph

Maybe he hopes it will make access to his music more precious and valuable but he should worry that it could eventually become less in demand as well.

 

[masquerade]

And now the entertainment world is getting into internet bashing too

Prince: the internet's completely over
By Emma Barnett, Technology and Digital Media Correspondent
06 Jul 2010

Prince, the 52-year-old music icon has pronounced the internet dead, refusing to use any digital platforms to distribute his music.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers Photo: REX FEATURES
Instead the artist has opted to release his latest album 20Ten in CD format only as a cover-mount free giveaway with The Daily Mirror this weekend.

Talking to The Mirror, Prince said: “The internet is completely over. I don’t see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won’t pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can’t get it.”

He went on to say: “The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers: “All these computers and digital gadgets are no good.

"They just fill your head with numbers and that cant be good for you.”
Prince: the internet's completely over - Telegraph

Prince has ALWAYS had an issue about his music on the World Wide Web. That talented aging man is starting to sound like Bill O'Reilly when it comes to the 'gadgets' of today.

 

[kwc57]

Everyone put your tin foil hats and crawl under your bed!!!

My company has interwebs filters. Hell, I miss out on the threads here where people post youtube videos or pictures. There is a variety of categories blocked from our view as they expect us to use our company provided computers to do actual work. I suspect when they say "controversial", they mean crap like stormfront. My company blocks shit like that too.

 

[xotoxi]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

Why should the government not restrict websites from being viewed on government owned computers, especially for non-work-related websits being viewed during worktime?

 

[xotoxi]

And now the entertainment world is getting into internet bashing too

Prince: the internet's completely over
By Emma Barnett, Technology and Digital Media Correspondent
06 Jul 2010

Prince, the 52-year-old music icon has pronounced the internet dead, refusing to use any digital platforms to distribute his music.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers Photo: REX FEATURES
Instead the artist has opted to release his latest album 20Ten in CD format only as a cover-mount free giveaway with The Daily Mirror this weekend.

Talking to The Mirror, Prince said: “The internet is completely over. I don’t see why I should give my new music to iTunes or anyone else. They won’t pay me an advance for it and then they get angry when they can’t get it.”

He went on to say: “The internet’s like MTV. At one time MTV was hip and suddenly it became outdated.

Prince also criticised the advent of gadgets and computers: “All these computers and digital gadgets are no good.

"They just fill your head with numbers and that cant be good for you.”
Prince: the internet's completely over - Telegraph

I can thing of something else that is completely over.

Prince.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, folks, let's try this again. Everybody sober now? Awake? Focused? Concentrating?

Nobody here has objected to employes restricting company computers to work related activities, and if some websites are blocked, nobody has a problem with that. When employees are on the clock and paid by the hour or a salary for working a shift, there is no problem requiring them to work rather than goof off on the internet.

Okay? It's okay to block websites on company computers. Are we agreed on that?

The question in my mind, however, is why are 'controversial opinion' sites blocked but not 'non controversial' opinion sites? Who decides what is and what is not controversial?

Is it beyond reasonable speculation that a purpose of such a policy might be political or for propaganda purposes? And if it proves to be effective for such purposes, the tendency could spread? And is it beyond reasonable to think that is a bit sinister?

Again, the issue is not whether an employer can or should limit internet access at work.

The question is why that one thing in particular.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHY isn't this tread in Conspiracy theories"

We need a new category... Right Wing paranoia, fear-mongering, polarized arguments and pea brainisms...

Maybe you would prefer this:

President Obama Issues Internet Edict to All Federal Employees

President Obama sent out a message today to every government employee. They are free to spend their computer time as they see fit. Because they have a 'government job', and the taxpayers are picking up the tab, there is no need for any responsibility, fiscal or otherwise.

 

[Ravi]

The question in my mind, however, is why are 'controversial opinion' sites blocked but not 'non controversial' opinion sites? Who decides what is and what is not controversial?

The employer. If I was the employer the list would include Stormfront, ELF, and any AQ site.

 

[Valerie]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

I understand your concern but ask yourself, doesn't the very same problem exist when they DO have their thumb on the pulse and isn't such a policy most likely a result of them actually having a pulse?

 

[Foxfyre]

We have seen quite a bit of discussion re rumors of the government taking control of the internet and having power to block access to this or that. If there has been any support for that on USMB, I missed it.

But the rumors persist and there's always that chance that when there is smoke. . . .

Noted this blurb today re one government agency that is implementing the policy. Now I can see why an employer would restrict chat messaging, social networking stuff even like USMB, gaming sites etc. You don't want your employees spending all their time doing that. But blocking "controversial news/opinion sites?" Who decides what is controversial?

(Credit: CBS News) The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.

It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access."

The categories include:

• Chat/Messaging
• Controversial opinion
• Criminal activity
• Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
• Gaming

The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a "controversial opinion."
TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web - CBS News Investigates - CBS News

And listening to other commentary, it is speculated that this may be the first shot across the bow. If it works out at the TSA, it could be implemented in other government agencies and eventually spread to the private sector. There isn't so much problem with an employer exercising control of how company computers can be used. But if the government should decide to make it mandatory for their contractors, etc. . . . .

And wouldn't it be good for a security agency to have their thumb on the pulse of controversial issues out there?

I don't know. I see a possible red flag here. Do you?

I understand your concern but ask yourself, doesn't the very same problem exist when they DO have their thumb on the pulse and isn't such a policy most likely a result of them actually having a pulse?

I don't know. Not entirely sure what you mean here Valerie. Could you expand on it a bit more?