TSA Internally Blocking Websites With 'Controversial Opinions' 147
sterlingda writes "The Transportation Security Administration 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 new rules came into force on July 1, and prevent TSA employees from accessing such content, though what is deemed 'controversial opinion' is not explained."
Who decides what is 'controversial opinion'? (Score:2, Insightful)
Uh. "In the work place" (Score:4, 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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing really to see.
oh, please (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 [rollingstone.com]? 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.
Re:Must not have disloyalty (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This isn't news (Score:5, 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:oh, please (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 [patriotpost.us]. 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 [mediaite.com] 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.
Maybe it's not (Score:4, Insightful)
Not controversial at all (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.
Re:Violates point of 1st Amendment (Score:4, 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:oh, please (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:This isn't news (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Uh. "In the work place" (Score:3, 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.
Re:This isn't news (Score:4, 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).