Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship Government The Internet Transportation United States Your Rights Online Technology

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TSA Internally Blocking Websites With 'Controversial Opinions'

Comments Filter:
  • This isn't news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 05, 2010 @04:15PM (#32802784)

    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.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @04:41PM (#32803018) Journal
    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:oh, please (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @04:56PM (#32803160) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:Maybe it's not (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @05:06PM (#32803210) Journal
    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.
  • by colonelquesadilla ( 1693356 ) on Monday July 05, 2010 @05:25PM (#32803310)

    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.

Work is the crab grass in the lawn of life. -- Schulz

Working...