Porn is still an option apparently.

It's not really a jack-booted thug move to tell employees that they can't fuck around on company time.

I was surprised porn wasn't on the blocked list.

It's a little hard to get too worked up about this one, Phredster.

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

It's a little hard to get too worked up about this one, Phredster.

Somehow I believe you would feel differently if W had blocked access to liberal websites for federal employees.  Just sayin'.

So your outrage is based on the assumption that Obama himself blocked access to specifically conservative websites?

With W, I was more worried about the bigger stuff, less about the misstatements and verbal gaffes. This shit should generate about as much outrage as the cookies at the whitehouse.gov website scandal.

choad wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

It's a little hard to get too worked up about this one, Phredster.

Somehow I believe you would feel differently if W had blocked access to liberal websites for federal employees.  Just sayin'.

My town's elected representatives squandered $100,000 last year attempting to learn which town employees post to a website I own. In fact, as I type this, the audit continues and the meter's still running. Yeah, even after an accidental executive session broadcast revealed the entire mess. The rising scum tide will get us all eventually.

You know they're going to blame the whole thing on you.

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

It's a little hard to get too worked up about this one, Phredster.

Somehow I believe you would feel differently if W had blocked access to liberal websites for federal employees.  Just sayin'.

No, I think I can honestly say I wouldn't. We're talking about tax-payer funded work and, as Ahpook pointed out, it's not terribly professional to be surfing the net on company - or taxpayer - time, anyway. If Voice of America, or some other agency or office specifically dealing with information or influencing public opinion were doing so, I would be alarmed.

Taint wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

It's a little hard to get too worked up about this one, Phredster.

Somehow I believe you would feel differently if W had blocked access to liberal websites for federal employees.  Just sayin'.

No, I think I can honestly say I wouldn't. We're talking about tax-payer funded work and, as Ahpook pointed out, it's not terribly professional to be surfing the net on company - or taxpayer - time, anyway. If Voice of America, or some other agency or office specifically dealing with information or influencing public opinion were doing so, I would be alarmed.

The fact that this agency is banning specific sites means the employees apparently have free access to the Internet.  They didn't say no surfing the net.  They said no surfing to websites we believe offer "controversial opinions".  This is a form of Chinese style censorship.  Who gets to decide which sites are banned?  Will this spread to other government agencies?  Does anyone really believe there is no political motive behind this?  I've said this before and I will no doubt repeat it often;  these rules will still be there when the next conservative regime moves in.  I don't want them to have this power any more than I want it residing with the current liberal cabal.

phreddy wrote:

Taint wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Somehow I believe you would feel differently if W had blocked access to liberal websites for federal employees.  Just sayin'.

No, I think I can honestly say I wouldn't. We're talking about tax-payer funded work and, as Ahpook pointed out, it's not terribly professional to be surfing the net on company - or taxpayer - time, anyway. If Voice of America, or some other agency or office specifically dealing with information or influencing public opinion were doing so, I would be alarmed.

The fact that this agency is banning specific sites means the employees apparently have free access to the Internet.  They didn't say no surfing the net.  They said no surfing to websites we believe offer "controversial opinions".  This is a form of Chinese style censorship.  Who gets to decide which sites are banned?  Will this spread to other government agencies?  Does anyone really believe there is no political motive behind this?  I've said this before and I will no doubt repeat it often;  these rules will still be there when the next conservative regime moves in.  I don't want them to have this power any more than I want it residing with the current liberal cabal.

I disagree. I used to work for a newspaper in which, I kid you not, the publisher limited our newsroom (albeit a small one) to one computer with Internet access because she was afraid we would spend our time surfing online rather than working. This was about 1999 or 2000 and the web still wasn't quite the force it is today but governments were beginning to load plenty of information on the web to which we wanted access.

There are still plenty of old farts out there who regard the Web as a plaything rather than a tool. I suspect this is one of those cases.

phreddy wrote:

The fact that this agency is banning specific sites means the employees apparently have free access to the Internet.

The fact that they have rules about which sites employees are allowed to go to proves that employees can go to any site?

phreddy wrote:

They said no surfing to websites we believe offer "controversial opinions".  This is a form of Chinese style censorship.

You know who else didn't allow people to surf any site they wanted to at work?   The Nazis.

phreddy wrote:

Who gets to decide which sites are banned?

The employer, just like every other job.  Wake me when the government starts preventing people from surfing controversial sites at home.