Internet Censorship - First Shot Across the Bow?

[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?



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?

Sorry, I was thinking of this part of what you said:



" 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?
"

 

[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

I can thing of something else that is completely over.

Prince.

I dunno.



Prince-When Doves Cry

 

[Foxfyre]

If you mean that the government routinely pushes propaganda and ideology on Federal civil servants, yes I'm sure that happens. This internet policy is the first time that it seems to be written into offiicial policy though. It is a very different thing from restricting classified information, etc.

I think we would all be wise to keep heads up on any such attempts to push it onto the general public as a whole.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

What if they require you to piss in a cup?


Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none.
Edmund Burke

 

[xotoxi]

By "controversial opinion" sites, they are probably referring to Hannity, Rush, Beck, Fox News, and viewing the Rolling Stone interview with McChrystal.

 

[syrenn]

Blocking content on the internet, at a workplace is rather standard now. You don't want you employees playing solitary all day long. It idea of "controversial content" is rather amusing as i would think the government in and of itself is controversial.

The categories include:

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

What I did notice about the five areas is that SEX/PORN is not one of the prohibited areas.

 

[boedicca]

Frankly, I don't see why government employees should be spending their work time on the internet in the first place - but if they are allowed, blocking "controversial opinion" is rather beyond the pale. Blocking porn, chat, games and other purely leisure activities is one thing - but controversial opinion crosses into sites that provide news. It's fairly standard to allow employees access to news sites at work - and not difficult to guess which ones will be deemed controversial by the Obama Administration.

 

[kwc57]

Frankly, I don't see why government employees should be spending their work time on the internet in the first place - but if they are allowed, blocking "controversial opinion" is rather beyond the pale. Blocking porn, chat, games and other purely leisure activities is one thing - but controversial opinion crosses into sites that provide news. It's fairly standard to allow employees access to news sites at work - and not difficult to guess which ones will be deemed controversial by the Obama Administration.

News sites yes. Fox, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. Partisan opinion sies, no. MoveOn, Weekly Standard, StormFront, etc.

The problem today is that some folks on both sides are not smart enough to know the difference between "news" and "opinion". That is in part due to people who dispense opinion saying that they are giving you the news instead of telling you their view of the news. Both revolve around current events, but the presentation is totally different.

 

[Foxfyre]

Frankly, I don't see why government employees should be spending their work time on the internet in the first place - but if they are allowed, blocking "controversial opinion" is rather beyond the pale. Blocking porn, chat, games and other purely leisure activities is one thing - but controversial opinion crosses into sites that provide news. It's fairly standard to allow employees access to news sites at work - and not difficult to guess which ones will be deemed controversial by the Obama Administration.

That's the part that bothers me. Especially people in an agency charged with security should have access to all parts of the internet that could provide information useful for people charged with responsibility for security. You certainly don't get all the facts from the straight mainstream news sources, but you do get a lot of bias and slant and opinion that may or may not be well researched or objective.

I have four or five sites that I visit most mornings just to find out what the news of the day or week is ikely to be. These sites do such thorough research that they often know stuff hours or days or weeks before the mainstream media reports it. And there is a lot of stuff that the mainstream media would never report if they weren't forced into dealing with it by the denisons of the internet who are doing better research than 99% of the reporters out there.

If all internet surfing is prohibited so be it. But for the federal government to be choosing what is and isn't appropriate for federal civil servants to see in the realm of information is uncomfortable for me. Evenmoreso if they should decide to extend such censorship it to schools and facilities funded by the federal government.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Nothing would make the traiterous jew dog Lieberman and his partner in crime senator Rockefeller of WV more happy than to control the masses by cesnoring what they read.

 

[Valerie]

After intense media scrutiny, the Transportation Security Administration on Tuesday backed off a new policy that would have restricted employees from visiting "controversial opinion" sites at work.

Employees at the TSA were initially informed last Friday that five categories of websites would be blocked on internal computers. They included: chat/messaging, criminal activity, extreme violence and gruesome content, gaming and controversial opinion.

But following questions about how broadly the last category would be interpreted, the TSA sent around an e-mail to employees on Tuesday saying "controversial opinion" sites would not be blocked.

"After further review, TSA determined this category may contain some sites that do not violate TSA's policy and therefore has concluded that the category is no longer being considered for implementation," the e-mail said. "Our intent is not, and never has been, to limit your ability to access or share 'controversial opinions.'"

The TSA explained that the five categories had been defined by their "IT software" and were based on concerns that those kinds of sites could either pose an "increased security risk" or violate the agency's "acceptable use" policy.

FOXNews.com - TSA Backs Off Censoring 'Controversial Opinion' Sites

 

[Charles_Main]

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

I see no problem with them restricting access from TSA computers by TSA. Whats the big deal? Most companies do the same thing. Why are employees accessing web sites not related to their work in the first place?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

I see no problem with them restricting access from TSA computers by TSA. Whats the big deal? Most companies do the same thing. Why are employees accessing web sites not related to their work in the first place?

Again the issue is not whether an employer can or should block internet access to employees. I don't have a problem with blocking ALL internet access or that unrelated to a person's job.

Repeat: the issue is not whether employees should have internet access.

The issue is the strange ruling that listed sites to be blocked--no problem--except ONLY sites expressing controversial opinion were to be blocked, but not ALL sites expressing controversial opinion.

So the next question is: who decides whether a site is controversial or not?

And the next question is: Is this some kind of experiment to see if they can get away with it and, if they can, will it be imposed on all government employees? And if that becomes the norm will it also be imposed on entities receiving federal funding: libraries, United Ways, public schools, etc.?

And by this time, don't you think even some knee jerk reactionaries probably still have enough rational brain matter left that they would be having a problem with that?

 

[Charles_Main]

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

I see no problem with them restricting access from TSA computers by TSA. Whats the big deal? Most companies do the same thing. Why are employees accessing web sites not related to their work in the first place?

Again the issue is not whether an employer can or should block internet access to employees. I don't have a problem with blocking ALL internet access or that unrelated to a person's job.

Repeat: the issue is not whether employees should have internet access.

The issue is the strange ruling that listed sites to be blocked--no problem--except ONLY sites expressing controversial opinion were to be blocked, but not ALL sites expressing controversial opinion.

So the next question is: who decides whether a site is controversial or not?

And the next question is: Is this some kind of experiment to see if they can get away with it and, if they can, will it be imposed on all government employees? And if that becomes the norm will it also be imposed on entities receiving federal funding: libraries, United Ways, public schools, etc.?

And by this time, don't you think even some knee jerk reactionaries probably still have enough rational brain matter left that they would be having a problem with that?

While I agree that seems messed up that they are cherry picking what to block. I still do not see how it can be called a censorship issue. They are on TSA computers.

I mean don't get me wrong it is messed up and they are trying to censor those sites, I just do not see how we would have any legal grounds to fight it if we wanted to. They have every right to restrict access on their computers in what ever way they see fit. If they were telling them what they could and could not look at at home, or on their lap tops at lunch that would be a totally different story.

The Moral is if you do not want the government doing unseemly left wing BS, do not elect a far left ideologue as president

 

[Foxfyre]

I see no problem with them restricting access from TSA computers by TSA. Whats the big deal? Most companies do the same thing. Why are employees accessing web sites not related to their work in the first place?

Again the issue is not whether an employer can or should block internet access to employees. I don't have a problem with blocking ALL internet access or that unrelated to a person's job.

Repeat: the issue is not whether employees should have internet access.

The issue is the strange ruling that listed sites to be blocked--no problem--except ONLY sites expressing controversial opinion were to be blocked, but not ALL sites expressing controversial opinion.

So the next question is: who decides whether a site is controversial or not?

And the next question is: Is this some kind of experiment to see if they can get away with it and, if they can, will it be imposed on all government employees? And if that becomes the norm will it also be imposed on entities receiving federal funding: libraries, United Ways, public schools, etc.?

And by this time, don't you think even some knee jerk reactionaries probably still have enough rational brain matter left that they would be having a problem with that?

While I agree that seems messed up that they are cherry picking what to block. I still do not see how it can be called a censorship issue. They are on TSA computers.

I mean don't get me wrong it is messed up and they are trying to censor those sites, I just do not see how we would have any legal grounds to fight it if we wanted to. They have every right to restrict access on their computers in what ever way they see fit. If they were telling them what they could and could not look at at home, or on their lap tops at lunch that would be a totally different story.

I didn't even think censorhip in this context, however.

I did see it as a kind of brainwashing.

And, I see that as sinister. If the employees don't have a problem with it, I can see it being implemented elsewhere until it pervades everything the US government touches.

As the modern parable goes: "You should have stopped me at the dinner roll."

Until we Americans stop shrugging off stuff as "well, that's not so bad. . . .or, not important enough to make a big deal out of. . . ." we are at risk of giving the government much more authority than it was ever intended to have.

The Dinner Roll

There was a time I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President.

As a well-respected businessman, with a factory that produces consumer goods for both the United States and countries around the world, I smiled when I received the invitation.

Although there was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, I paid it no mind. After all, we live in a free country, and there is nothing to fear if we have not broken the law. My business was completely legit - all of my wealth was earned honestly over the years, so an invitation to have dinner with the President would simply be an honor.

I drove to the White House imagining what the evening would be like. Perhaps the President would thank me for my past support. Or for running such a prosperous business. I employed many people, and brought additional revenue into our country. Surely he would thank me for setting an example for others to follow as they too pursued the American dream.

After making my way through security, I was able to check my coat before a warm greeting by the Chief of Staff. We then joined the President in an exquisite formal dining room. He smiled warmly, shook my hand, then asked me to please take a seat. We sat across from each other at a table draped in fine white linen. The Great Seal was embossed upon the china. Uniformed staff arrived in unison to tend to our needs.

The meal was then served; however, I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked the dinner roll off my plate and began to eat it as he walked back toward the kitchen.

"Sorry 'bout that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

I didn't know what to say or think, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I suddenly felt petty for getting upset over a dinner roll. It was, after all, just a roll, and I had a full meal ahead of me. "Of course," I conceded. "I certainly don't want the one who feeds me to be hungry himself."

At this point I decided to take a sip of my wine; however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and began to drink.

"His brother, Eric, is very thirsty," said the President.

I didn't say anything. 'The President is testing my compassion,' I thought. So I withheld my comments and decided to play along. I did not want to seem unkind.

Then my plate full of food was whisked away before I had even tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

I knew they were up to something. Then suddenly I came crashing to the floor. The chair I was sitting in had literally been pulled out from under me! I was shocked, and hurt, but I managed to pick myself up and brush myself off as I watched someone carry the chair out of the room.

"And their poor grandmother, she can't stand for extended periods of time."

By now I was hurting, embarassed, confused, angry, and hungry, unsure of what to say or do so I excused myself, with a polite but awkward smile. I had obviously been invited to the White House to be made a fool of. I went back for my coat, only to find that it had been taken.

I turned back toward the President.

"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout, "But that was MY coat!" Yet when I looked at the placid smiling face of my host, the President of the United States, I thought maybe, just maybe, I was making a mountain out of a molehill. After all, I had plenty of good meals, a houseful of furniture, and more than one coat at home. So I spread my arms out helplessly while smiling and shrugging my shoulders like 'what's a guy to do?'.

That's when I had the thought to check for my wallet, and sure enough, it too was gone. I began to panic, quickly excused myself, walking briskly over to a phone I had seen on an elegant side table.

Call after call confirmed my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank account was empty, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife let me know that some men in uniform had escorted her out of our home. To add insult to injury, the waiters and their families were moving in!

After learning all of this information, I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face the President who was still enjoying his meal. As I opened my mouth to speak, he said rather matter of factly:

"Andrew's whole family has made some bad financial decisions. They have no money for retirement and they desperately need a new house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage so I took pity on them. There are eight of them and only two of you so I told them they could have your home. It is clear, and America agrees, that they need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor.

The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak, and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth where my tears were now falling.

"By the way," he added , "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I will be appointing someone new to operate the firm. It is for the good of our country and the benefit of others. It is only logical for me to tend to the needs of all mankind. There are many Erics and Andrews out there and I believe that the Government can do a better job than you at running your business and creating new jobs. We can not fail because we can not go bankrupt. However, we can not wait a moment longer. We need to spread your wealth around now."

I shook my head in disbelief. The President then licked his spoon, returning it to empty dish which had cradeled his crème Brule. He drank the last drops of his wine, then as the table was cleared, he lit a cigar, leaned back in his chair, and simply looked at me.

I must have been a sad sight to see. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I could not decide whether to save my life or jump into the abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived, the life I know I had earned from a lifetime of discipline, personal risk and day-to-day struggle.

Why was I being punished? How could I have allowed everything to be taken from me? from my wife? from my children and my children's children? What kind of a sick game was this?! I was obviously the biggest loser of all time. 'How ironic' I thought, as I looked across the table noticing that there certainly was no game board between us.

'What,' I wondered, 'could I have done to stop or prevent this from happening?'

As if he could read my mind by answering the unspoken thought and questions, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes onto mine, and chuckled wryly as he smiled and said:

"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll."

 

[Charles_Main]

Again the issue is not whether an employer can or should block internet access to employees. I don't have a problem with blocking ALL internet access or that unrelated to a person's job.

Repeat: the issue is not whether employees should have internet access.

The issue is the strange ruling that listed sites to be blocked--no problem--except ONLY sites expressing controversial opinion were to be blocked, but not ALL sites expressing controversial opinion.

So the next question is: who decides whether a site is controversial or not?

And the next question is: Is this some kind of experiment to see if they can get away with it and, if they can, will it be imposed on all government employees? And if that becomes the norm will it also be imposed on entities receiving federal funding: libraries, United Ways, public schools, etc.?

And by this time, don't you think even some knee jerk reactionaries probably still have enough rational brain matter left that they would be having a problem with that?

While I agree that seems messed up that they are cherry picking what to block. I still do not see how it can be called a censorship issue. They are on TSA computers.

I mean don't get me wrong it is messed up and they are trying to censor those sites, I just do not see how we would have any legal grounds to fight it if we wanted to. They have every right to restrict access on their computers in what ever way they see fit. If they were telling them what they could and could not look at at home, or on their lap tops at lunch that would be a totally different story.

I didn't even think censorhip in this context, however.

I did see it as a kind of brainwashing.

And, I see that as sinister. If the employees don't have a problem with it, I can see it being implemented elsewhere until it pervades everything the US government touches.

As the modern parable goes: "You should have stopped me at the dinner roll."

Until we Americans stop shrugging off stuff as "well, that's not so bad. . . .or, not important enough to make a big deal out of. . . ." we are at risk of giving the government much more authority than it was ever intended to have.

The Dinner Roll

There was a time I was invited to the White House for a private dinner with the President.

As a well-respected businessman, with a factory that produces consumer goods for both the United States and countries around the world, I smiled when I received the invitation.

Although there was some talk that my industry was being scrutinized by the administration, I paid it no mind. After all, we live in a free country, and there is nothing to fear if we have not broken the law. My business was completely legit - all of my wealth was earned honestly over the years, so an invitation to have dinner with the President would simply be an honor.

I drove to the White House imagining what the evening would be like. Perhaps the President would thank me for my past support. Or for running such a prosperous business. I employed many people, and brought additional revenue into our country. Surely he would thank me for setting an example for others to follow as they too pursued the American dream.

After making my way through security, I was able to check my coat before a warm greeting by the Chief of Staff. We then joined the President in an exquisite formal dining room. He smiled warmly, shook my hand, then asked me to please take a seat. We sat across from each other at a table draped in fine white linen. The Great Seal was embossed upon the china. Uniformed staff arrived in unison to tend to our needs.

The meal was then served; however, I was startled when my waiter suddenly reached out, plucked the dinner roll off my plate and began to eat it as he walked back toward the kitchen.

"Sorry 'bout that," said the President. "Andrew is very hungry."

I didn't know what to say or think, but as I looked into the calm brown eyes across from me, I suddenly felt petty for getting upset over a dinner roll. It was, after all, just a roll, and I had a full meal ahead of me. "Of course," I conceded. "I certainly don't want the one who feeds me to be hungry himself."

At this point I decided to take a sip of my wine; however, another waiter reached forward, took the glass away and began to drink.

"His brother, Eric, is very thirsty," said the President.

I didn't say anything. 'The President is testing my compassion,' I thought. So I withheld my comments and decided to play along. I did not want to seem unkind.

Then my plate full of food was whisked away before I had even tasted a bite.

"Eric's children are also quite hungry."

I knew they were up to something. Then suddenly I came crashing to the floor. The chair I was sitting in had literally been pulled out from under me! I was shocked, and hurt, but I managed to pick myself up and brush myself off as I watched someone carry the chair out of the room.

"And their poor grandmother, she can't stand for extended periods of time."

By now I was hurting, embarassed, confused, angry, and hungry, unsure of what to say or do so I excused myself, with a polite but awkward smile. I had obviously been invited to the White House to be made a fool of. I went back for my coat, only to find that it had been taken.

I turned back toward the President.

"Their grandfather doesn't like the cold."

I wanted to shout, "But that was MY coat!" Yet when I looked at the placid smiling face of my host, the President of the United States, I thought maybe, just maybe, I was making a mountain out of a molehill. After all, I had plenty of good meals, a houseful of furniture, and more than one coat at home. So I spread my arms out helplessly while smiling and shrugging my shoulders like 'what's a guy to do?'.

That's when I had the thought to check for my wallet, and sure enough, it too was gone. I began to panic, quickly excused myself, walking briskly over to a phone I had seen on an elegant side table.

Call after call confirmed my credit cards had been maxed out, my bank account was empty, my retirement and equity portfolios had vanished, and my wife let me know that some men in uniform had escorted her out of our home. To add insult to injury, the waiters and their families were moving in!

After learning all of this information, I lowered the phone into its cradle and turned to face the President who was still enjoying his meal. As I opened my mouth to speak, he said rather matter of factly:

"Andrew's whole family has made some bad financial decisions. They have no money for retirement and they desperately need a new house. They recently defaulted on a subprime mortgage so I took pity on them. There are eight of them and only two of you so I told them they could have your home. It is clear, and America agrees, that they need it more than you do."

My hands were shaking. I felt faint. I stumbled back to the table and knelt on the floor.

The President cheerfully cut his meat, ate his steak, and drank his wine. I lowered my eyes and stared at the small grey circles on the tablecloth where my tears were now falling.

"By the way," he added , "I have just signed an Executive Order nationalizing your factories. I'm firing you as head of your business. I will be appointing someone new to operate the firm. It is for the good of our country and the benefit of others. It is only logical for me to tend to the needs of all mankind. There are many Erics and Andrews out there and I believe that the Government can do a better job than you at running your business and creating new jobs. We can not fail because we can not go bankrupt. However, we can not wait a moment longer. We need to spread your wealth around now."

I shook my head in disbelief. The President then licked his spoon, returning it to empty dish which had cradeled his crème Brule. He drank the last drops of his wine, then as the table was cleared, he lit a cigar, leaned back in his chair, and simply looked at me.

I must have been a sad sight to see. I clung to the edge of the table as if it were a ledge and I could not decide whether to save my life or jump into the abyss. I thought of the years behind me, of the life I had lived, the life I know I had earned from a lifetime of discipline, personal risk and day-to-day struggle.

Why was I being punished? How could I have allowed everything to be taken from me? from my wife? from my children and my children's children? What kind of a sick game was this?! I was obviously the biggest loser of all time. 'How ironic' I thought, as I looked across the table noticing that there certainly was no game board between us.

'What,' I wondered, 'could I have done to stop or prevent this from happening?'

As if he could read my mind by answering the unspoken thought and questions, the President suddenly cocked his head, locked his empty eyes onto mine, and chuckled wryly as he smiled and said:

"You should have stopped me at the dinner roll."

Oh it is definitely sinister. However not surprising at all with the Radicals Obama has spread around our bureaucracy.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

If someone is paying me a salary, I shoudn't be posting on USMB*, as just an example of what blocking of "controversial opinion sites" undoubtedly means.

Edit-- *since I do quite often research "controversial opinion sites" while I'm playing politics on USMB. Get it? They're obviously covering all bases, and I see nothing wrong with it. Left to their own devices, employees WILL use the Internet while on the job for personal pleasure.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

The use of the category "controversial opinion sites" was probably just a catch-all. I think you're overreacting.

 

[MaggieMae]

If you mean that the government routinely pushes propaganda and ideology on Federal civil servants, yes I'm sure that happens. This internet policy is the first time that it seems to be written into offiicial policy though. It is a very different thing from restricting classified information, etc.

I think we would all be wise to keep heads up on any such attempts to push it onto the general public as a whole.

How do you know what all the other agencies have as their policy on Internet browsing? The only agency that got widespread press because it apparently did NOT have a policy was the Minerals Management Service.

 

[MaggieMae]

Frankly, I don't see why government employees should be spending their work time on the internet in the first place - but if they are allowed, blocking "controversial opinion" is rather beyond the pale. Blocking porn, chat, games and other purely leisure activities is one thing - but controversial opinion crosses into sites that provide news. It's fairly standard to allow employees access to news sites at work - and not difficult to guess which ones will be deemed controversial by the Obama Administration.

That's the part that bothers me. Especially people in an agency charged with security should have access to all parts of the internet that could provide information useful for people charged with responsibility for security. You certainly don't get all the facts from the straight mainstream news sources, but you do get a lot of bias and slant and opinion that may or may not be well researched or objective.

I have four or five sites that I visit most mornings just to find out what the news of the day or week is ikely to be. These sites do such thorough research that they often know stuff hours or days or weeks before the mainstream media reports it. And there is a lot of stuff that the mainstream media would never report if they weren't forced into dealing with it by the denisons of the internet who are doing better research than 99% of the reporters out there.

If all internet surfing is prohibited so be it. But for the federal government to be choosing what is and isn't appropriate for federal civil servants to see in the realm of information is uncomfortable for me. Evenmoreso if they should decide to extend such censorship it to schools and facilities funded by the federal government.

Aren't we talking in this thread strictly about TSA? One would think that any "new item" regarding TSA would come from the horse's mouth, and not from, say, Matt Drudge who is apt to foment a headline based on rumor (and posted first thing in the morning as if gospel). Time and time again, I'll see a new thread started based on the right-wing talking point du jour, and searching for the real "source" might take reviewing three or four pages of right-wing websites all saying exactly the same thing until you finally get to the REAL story. It's how a relatively unimportant "story" gets blown way out of proportion so that it becomes so loud that it's necessary for MSM to also lead with it. That's not news. That's inflammatory jounalism with an agenda.