US Missile Defense Staff Told To Stop Watching Porn 187
An anonymous reader writes "John James Jr., director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, who is responsible for the nation's missile defense system, recently sent out a one-page memo warning employees and contractors to stop using agency computers to visit pornographic Web sites. That's right; apparently they were watching the wrong type of bombshells."
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Because they were playing with the wrong type of missiles?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, still better if only a meat-rocket goes off, instead of a minute-man. ...wait
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
be the first recorded case of premature ejaculation that made the earth move for her too
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Pron IS productive for these people. Aren't they trained constantly to launch their missile and have them explode. Watching porn is no more than a training video.
If we go to war and they are told to launch their missile and watch them explode, they will be ready and perform their duty well.
And if they watched enough "training videos" they will be able to control the timing of that launch and subsequent missile explosion with remarkable accuracy due to all their practice and training.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
> Apparently they were watching the wrong type of bombshells.
Brian: Dumb joke.
Stewie: You think it's so easy, name 12.
Brian:
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of missiles.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of payloads.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of shots.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of O-rings.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of re-entry procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of liquid coolant.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of emergency ejection.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of solid rocket.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of holding pattern.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of engine flameout.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of fire surpression system.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of throttle up.
Stewie: Name 5 more.
Brian:
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of loading the cargo bay.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of playing with the funny arm.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of rubber suit.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of trans docking.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of linkup.
Stewie: Name 6 more.
Brian:
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of system failure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of manual procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of stirring the tank.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of evacuation procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of moon rover.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of boot to the moon.
Stewie: (Throws guitar on the floor) F(bleep) you!
Brian: ...
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of separation procedure.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of Weiner von Braun.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of 'tang.
Apparently they were watching the wrong type of
Stewie: Now you die.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, yeah, most of us would be out on our asses if our employers caught us looking at porn. The reason people tag links NSFW is because you can get fired for even accidentally clicking on non-pornographic nudity.
So these guys might have just been looking at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], or perhaps at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]? Caution, some Wikipedia pages (like those two) might actually be considered NSFW in really incredibly prudish places, simply because they contain photos of human genitalia (but non-prurient photos).
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
Thanks. I just got fired.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who need to be fired are the network administrators who aren't filtering external traffic properly in the first place. And why not fire this director who doesn't see that's the true source of the problem?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
That doesn't really fix the problem. It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse. Most admins grow tired of being expected to have an airtight physical defense when there's no complementary policy in place.
A better response is to have the network admins place reasonably good filtering in place. Not airtight. Not filters that interfere with legitimate traffic. Filters with a zero-false-positive. Then if someone is still watching porn, it's easy to demonstrate that they're taking steps to bypass the filtering. Make it clear to the staff that deliberately bypassing the filters is a fireable offense.
This solves most of the problem all at once. No collateral damage, no borderline unfair calls, reasonable expense, and accountability where it belongs.
It also makes the perps easier to catch, since they don't have to spend hours trying to different things before they finally find the inevitable crack in the armor. They'll try basic things like proxy or direct IP etc. Those are easy to prove as deliberate while at the same time being easy to detect. If you're placing the entire onus on the net admin, the users can dig at your defenses all day long without so much as a wrist-slap, and when they finally discover another way, they've' not only beat you, you may have a difficult time noticing you've been beat. And then you are the bad guy for having "allowed" them to violate policy.
I've been in charge of cat and mouse before. I'd set something up, they'd find a way around it. I'd add another net. They'd stop for a bit and then they'd find a way around it. Rinse and repeat. All the while the manager wouldn't bother to yank one of them into the office and discuss the perils of working hard to break company policy. The filters finally got tight enough that the manager started having problems with some of his downtime, and then things really got weird. You don't want to be here.
"against company policy" needs to mean "you don't do that here", not "we're going to try to stop you from doing that here".
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse.
I don't only agree, I'd go a step further: The admins job is not to filter content, but to keep the network running.
Filter malware, yes. Content? Why should the admin care if that image shows a tit or a cat?
Maybe I'm too open-minded but I don't get what the fuss is all about. If I came upon a co-worker or even a subordinate watching porn, I'd be more worried that he's not working than what he is watching. Sure it's not very tasteful, but as long as his hands stay out of his trousers (or skirt, let's stop pretending only men watch porn), I don't care all that much. Maybe if our society were a little less sexually repressed, we could focus on what actually matters instead of political correctness?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Fun fact,
Almost every time I view the router logs and find porn sites in them, it happens that someone violated the security policy and brought unsecured media from home and infected their work system, clicked yes for a popup and installed something or somehow infected the computer with malware that the Antivirus didn't pick up. I don't know if it cause and effect where the malware caused the porn lookups or if the malware was the result of the porn lookups, but I know a symptom of the malware was pornograp
Re: (Score:2)
"Make it clear to the staff that deliberately bypassing the filters is a fireable offense."
That's why people bring their own notebooks and watch porn with their phone's personal hotspot.
Albeit that might not work for missile defense when they are a mile down a mountain.
Re: (Score:2)
As a network admin, dealing with employees "wasting company time" isn't my job, so I really don't get too involved with it. So I really don't care if they jack up their personal computer. But I must admit I feel even less sorry for them when they wasted company time to do it in the first place. Serves them up a heaping fresh pile of "serves you right".
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is not a technical issue, it is a personnel issue.
On the technical side we can block access to sites by URL, IP, or keyword... but there are ways to get around these blocks, and implementing/maintaining these controls takes time and money away from more useful projects.
It is far better to instruct employees that such activity is not allowed, and discipline (including termination if necessary) those who do not follow the policy.
I can see an argument for the case that in a defense environment there
Re: (Score:2)
We cannot block it all. Quick, where is the list, updated minute to minute, of every porn site on the net? There is none and cannot be one. If hjfwiufiwubfqwfuwwe.com serves up porn, how am I supposed to know?
Re:Why? (Score:4, Funny)
It doesn't. That domain does not even exist. Thanks for the non-existent tip.
Re: (Score:3)
For future reference, in the /. porn detection protocol, I post a domain and you reply ACK, NACK, HUUUURL, or aOOOOOOOOOga
Re: (Score:2)
In many places, there is an assumption that the people working there are adults and don't need net-nanny and it's many false positives. Since the employees were caught and no malware got in, the network is apparently being properly monitored and filtered.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit, it is not the network admins job to enforce workplace rules. That's like firing the phone guy because some manager can't keep his guys from calling the wife too much.
It's a personnel management deficiency not a technology deficiency. You will never be able to block everything that shouldn't be viewed from work unless you just pull the plug.
Re: (Score:2)
So taking breaks is good for productivity - unless you're a government employee?
Re: (Score:3)
"If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required."
Filling various positions is required in porn worth watching.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are quire a few positions where periods of activity and waiting alternate. Trying to "remove the slack" in such scenarios typically results in small savings in periods of passivity and huge disasters in periods of activity. This is especially true in scenarios like missile defense where activity periods depend on some unpredictable external factor - it's too late to hire staff when the air raid sirens start blaring, and having enough staff to handle a missile attack means that you'll have more than you need when an attack is not incoming.
But even beyond that, human beings aren't capable of giving 100% 8 hours a day. If you try to make them, those who can leave for greener pastures and those who can't concentrate on looking busy, rather than doing their job. The end result is that you'll end up with incompetent, unmotivated people trying their best to deceive the management.
But perhaps this isn't about wasted time but porn. If so, then please remember that this is a position that likely requires quite a bit of highly specialized training. Is punishing people for being impure sinners a good enough reason to justify the cost of training their replacements? Maybe, maybe not - but since this training would come out of taxpayer money, it would probably be best to not pay to enforce any moral code that doesn't absolutely have to be.
Re: (Score:2)
I spent some time working with the FAA. The person I replaced had been fired for viewing porn at work. The case was still in litigation up to two years after he was fired, due to the union. I'm not really sure what was being argued, but my manager had to go to hearings every once a while.
I kind of assumed these would be military positions, but the summary mentions employees and contractors, so perhaps that is where the union is getting involved (In the case of employees. Contractors are used in a lot of
Re: (Score:3)
Disagree. There are lots of jobs out there where your role is to basically wait for something to happen, and if it does happen, handle it. They may even be pretty highly paid and important jobs, depending on what "something happening" is what exactly what "handling it" involves. I'd say that the guys responsible for handling an incoming nuclear missile attack are pretty damn important. There's not many things where it's more important that they be handled properly if they happen, or that we hope they don't
Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well put.
It's like saying, "We found that 80% of the time, the firefighters were just sitting around the fire station doing nothing. So we're going to reduce the fire department by 80%."
Re: (Score:2)
So these people spend their entire work life sitting around waiting, and when finally the emergency arrives, they simultaneously turn their keys and actively participate in ending life on Earth once and for all...
Suicide seems like an honorable alternative to a life so thouroughly wasted.
Re: (Score:3)
Because flash animations and other movie formats have been used as vectors for malware in the past. So if they're using missile defense computers to watch porn, they are potentially infecting critical defense computers with trojans that could be exploited by an enemy.
I suppose that if they're bringing their commercial DVDs, or personal home movies through the security checkpoints it might be OK, but then they would need to explain their collection to their wives/SOs.
Re: (Score:3)
...Why are any critical missile defense computers connected to the Internet? I mean, isn't that pretty much asking for that very scenario?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
because of this tidbit in the Bloomberg article:
"Using what is called steganography, Cunningham said, a programmer can embed malicious computer code that infects computers, opens ports, steals data or gains access to networks when photos, videos or other files are downloaded."
Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think the GP was claiming that it doesn't happen. Image formats are relatively complex, and compressed audio and video formats doubly so. If you're going to have a security hole in an OS or a browser, odds are good that it will be in a codec somewhere.
That said, what we have here is a pretty egregious misuse of the term steganography. Steganography refers to hiding data inside other data. A trojan image file that exploits a bug in your browser to load malware isn't steganography because there is no actual image. There's no hiding. It is merely the misrepresentation of one type of data as another type of data, which is a trojan horse, not steganography.
Steganography would be Chinese dissidents using image files that contained a subtle watermark in the least significant bits to send coded messages to one another, or someone embedding a piece of software in the low order bits of an MPEG stream. Those examples meet the core requirement that the enclosing data be at least ostensibly plausible data. Note that opening such a photo or MPEG stream reveals a photo or a movie. It does not execute anything, because if it did, the secret payload wouldn't be very hidden, now would it? :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Repeat after me: If it's a bit.ly or tinyurl link it's either a trojan or Goatse. (Or if you're really lucky it's only a Rickroll)
Re: (Score:2)
I seem to remember reading about an indestructible cookie that some academic had created. It was actually a number of cookies sprinkled around the system. They checked on eachother constantly and in the case that one was deleted the others would recreate it. One part of it was actually a graphic file, possibly a GIF if memory serves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...
I wish I knew what the guy really meant, because that's pure bullshit.
Images that "autoexecute"??? The only thing that it might reference is some overflow in in whatever displays the image. But that is certainly not "steganography".
Or of course, there is the old trick of "install this codec to view Anna Kournikova blowjob video! Is anyone who works on missile defence really that dumb? There certainly are malware infested porn sites. But the images are just images.
But I guess knowing what they did wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why is this considered news?
It's news to me that what are supposed to be professional soldiers/airmen have to be reminded not to engage in non-work related activity while on duty. (Whatever happened to "You can review the field manual during periods of inactivity. No, you absolutely cannot read the newspaper while on duty.")
It's news to me that people are using what are probably supposed to be secure or semi-secure systems to browse non-work-related sites on the public Internet.
It's news to me that the government's response to the abo
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Say what? Nike Ajax?
Sheeeit.. say WHAT? Nike Herc?
Pfftt.. I got your "Herc" right here! Nike Zeus?
How 'bout I Sprint [youtube.com] with his homeboy Spartan [youtube.com].
Too bad neither of these [wikipedia.org] were hit to kill and packed nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact the DoD hired an imbecile who can't configure a proxy to block access to porn IS news to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Whatever...they tell me to stop looking at porn all the time too.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I think the most disparaging problem is how the west has treated Russia. Bush basically said, stop kicking and screaming, you not going to harm us with the missile defense shield. We ignored their concerns on a lot of other things and demanded they support our positions on others. We even bribed them to follow our stances. We were at odds with them on Egypt, Lybia, and I think Russia pretty much put their foot down with Syria- and China seems to support them.
Putin is the wild card who is trying to reimpleme
the right idea (Score:4, Funny)
make love not war baby!
Re:the right idea (Score:5, Funny)
In wonder if... (Score:3, Funny)
...this means our missile defense has been shooting blanks this whole time?
it became a problem (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what the first article says. The second article says that wasn't the reason. I guess this is why it's a waste to read the articles.
Re:it became a problem (Score:5, Informative)
In that case I think that they should be more worried about the religious sites [tomsguide.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing against porn sites, but it IS a huge problem if their workstations are able to connect that easily to the global Internet. That's NOT supposed to be allowed in this sensitive environment. Then again, we're talking about the whole MDA bureaucratic personnel, not about the few NORAD staffers.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that this is really news worthy but who cares if they are watching porn? This is a legitimate job that has to be staffed 24/7 and probably requires about 20min worth of total combined labor in a typical year. Being the military that is increased to maybe a few days labor worth of redundant checklists over the course of the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that this is really news worthy but who cares if they are watching porn? This is a legitimate job that has to be staffed 24/7 and probably requires about 20min worth of total combined labor in a typical year. Being the military that is increased to maybe a few days labor worth of redundant checklists over the course of the year.
Having done jobs where your sole purpose most of the time is just to be there waiting I understand the lack of things to do. Still Gotta love the fact that beyond the normal workplace squimishness their main concern was viruses and malware, which porn sites have actually gotten a lot better about policing these days.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Then they can buy their OWN computer to do it on cant they?
Or are you comfortable with missile defense computers looking at porn sites (which have been consistent virus vectors in years past)? Even if those are not hooked up to the main computers all it takes is one mistake...
Also when you sign up to the military you sign away rights. You also sign on for people telling you 24/7 what to do and where to pee.
When I used to run a network. I told people do what you want on your own time and on your OWN hardw
Re: (Score:3)
Even if those are not hooked up to the main computers all it takes is one mistake...
But perhaps not watching porn increases the likelyhood of making a mistake? Who knows what they'll do when they get really bored and have no porn, video games or other distraction, they'll probably start screwing around with the missile systems...
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt the missile systems are tied to any sort of network. Either way toss up a guest wifi net and leave them alone. Believe me, there are worse ways for people with missile keys and too much time of their hands to vent their slowly building frustrations.
There is also nothing about a porn site that makes it more likely to harbor malware. Most of the infections I've seen came from financial sites.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a legitimate job that has to be staffed 24/7 and probably requires about 20min worth of total combined labor in a typical year.
You can't know that.
SAC in the fifties became known for its relentless drill and discipline. It is what the military demands and expects on assignments like this.
Those who do not measure up get transfered out.
There is somewhere worse than mainland Alaska in the U.S. Military. An island called Shemya in the Aleutians, a group of islands off the coast of the Alaskan Peninsula. According to legend, the wind never drops below 60 knots, the temperature never rises above -20 C and there's a 10-foot visibility fog 300 days of the year. Primary duty there is clearing the runway of obstructions. Every time someone left, they took a rock with them so someday there would be no more island and no one would ever have to go back. Or so that legend goes/
Reassigned to Antarctica [tvtropes.org]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, yeah - and YOU'RE going to be willing to push that button after Lance has been there jerking off all day. Fuck that - let somebody else launch the missile, I'm going to go get some chlorox and a gallon purel before I even think about touching it.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, yeah - and YOU'RE going to be willing to push that button after Lance has been there jerking off all day. Fuck that - let somebody else launch the missile, I'm going to go get some chlorox and a gallon purel before I even think about touching it.
That's part of the failsafe system:
#1: "Turn you key in 3, 2, 1..."
#2: "I ain't touchin' it."
#1: "We have a validated launch command sir. Turn your key!"
#2: "You kidding? Lance was on this console today. I'm not going near this nasty thing."
#1: (Points pistol) "Turn your key sir! That's an order! Turn your key!!!"
#2: "Hey, I ain't touching it! Tell you what, let's trade consoles..."
#1: "Hell no! I ain't touching it!"
Result: World saved! All thanks to pr0n!
cue to the missile jokes.... (Score:5, Funny)
Johnson: [notices Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better take a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
[cut to the sky in two jets]
Jet Pilot: Dick!
Dick: Yeah?
Pilot: Take a look outta starboard.
Dick: Oh, my God! It looks like a huge--
[cut to a forest with 2 birdwatchers]
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker!
Bird-Watching Man: [raises his binoculars] Oh, where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Wait! that's not a woodpecker. It looks like someone's--
[cut to a boot camp]
Army Sergeant: PRIVATES! We have reports of an unidentified flying object! It is a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
[cut to a baseball game]
Umpire: 2 balls! [looks up from game] What is that? That looks just like an enormous--
[cut to a Chinese school]
Teacher: Wang! Pay attention!
Wang: I was distracted by that enormous flying--
[cut to a concert with Willie Nelson and another guitarist]
Musician: Willie.
Willie: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie: [looks up] Well, it looks like a giant--
[cut back to headquarters]
Colonel: Johnson!
Johnson: Yes, sir!
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this!
Oblig video response... (Score:2)
Make Love Not War (Score:2)
doesn't matter.. (Score:2)
No content filter? (Score:2)
The US Missile Defense agency doesn't have any sort of content filter that could block this type of thing? You'd think they could use a simple whitelisting system - there can't be that many sites outside of *.gov that Missile Defense workers legitmately need to access from work. Let them use a smart phone in the lunchroom (outside of secure areas) when they need to update Facebook (or browse porn).
Re: (Score:2)
This surprises me as well: I work at a government facility, and it's locked down to the point where I can't get a fair number of sites that actually relate to my job, never mind something work-inappropriate.
Overblown story (Score:5, Informative)
The article says that less than half a dozen individuals were found to be accessing inappropriate material. That's out of over 8,000 individuals who work at MDA - one memo was sent out to address the problem.
This is not news.
Check. (Score:2)
From article: U.S. missile defense workers have been warned that porn on the job is not allowed. It's not just a question of public security due to distraction, but there's also the risk of computer security due to malware found on many such sites.
So they're running Windows machines. Check. Thanks for the information. :>
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong assumption. They could as well run Solaris/SPARC with Firefox, and getting infested with XSS and JavaScript viruses.
Maybe I should expand.... In my comment there is a ":>" at the end. :> = humor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Check. (Score:5, Funny)
Go on. Just admit it
Re:Check. (Score:4, Informative)
*peck*
Image vs. Reality (Score:2)
The military wants an image of a disciplined group of people focused on their job.
Reality the bulk is a bunch of young adults in their sexual prime...
What do you think will happen?
These machines must be secure... (Score:2)
...so from now on, bring you own porn to work in the form of a magazine.
Why isn't DoD using Websense? (Score:2)
Not just for blocking porn, but malware.
replace the men in the missile silos with computer (Score:2)
replace the men in the missile silos with computer control so we don't have to deal with this.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/ [imdb.com]
It documents an early attempt to remove the humans from the loop, and some of the problems encountered.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to play global thermonuclear war, Joshua....
New Designs (Score:2)
What's the worst that could happen? (Score:2)
We shouldn't be so uptight, it's not like everyone in the world will die if they're distracted from their job for an instant.
It's job-relevant (Score:2)
They were watching massive ordnance penetrators attacking and blowing their payloads in various soft targets :D
What they say about keyboards vs. toilet-seats... (Score:2)
Mouse too.
Well, it gives a whole new meaning to the term... (Score:2)
"pocket rocket."
virus attacks (Score:2)
there's actually a serious reason why they shouldn't permit internet-porn-watching in U.S. classified military networks. if they really really want to watch porn, they should provide *isolated* computers and DVDs - or the personnel should bring their own personal machines into the building (if permitted).
criminals *know* that lots of people watch porn, so they make sure that such sites are loaded with viruses. even just knowing, now, that U.S. military watch porn, you can be damn sure that there will be f
Promote them all to management... (Score:2)
Then prosecute them under sexual harassment law. As managers share legal liability with a company if they knowingly permit such a situation (such as participating in it). They can keep their jobs (government employees are almost impossible to fire), let people take them to civil court until they've had enough.
Whitelist-only (Score:2)
I'm going to assume they have their critical workstations airgapped and these are their email/other workstations where they can access situational awareness information.
Simple way to resolve this is to allow access to whitelist-only pre-approved sites. We do this in our SCADA control room. SCADA machines are airgapped, and email/documentation machines are white-list only.
We do give them access to Terminal Servers in a DMZ which have less-restricted Internet access.
Also, we allow them to bring in their own
Re: (Score:2)
This goes against the whole slashdot groupthink on this story, but you know what.. I don't care if they are looking at porn or not.
These people are stuck in damn boring situations for long hours and I really don't need or want to know what they do with that time. If they really are using their tech well enough I am guessing a computer would pick up any incoming well before a human could comprend it anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The less up tight these people are the safer I feel.
Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...you know the people actually working on porn are probably sneaking off to watch missile launch videos.
Re: (Score:2)
Fairly, however, an employee should be instructed as to what is and is not appropriate for work before they can be disciplined for violating it.
The problem is: some employers leave the judgment of "appropriate" up to the employee. Right up to the point at which some crybaby complains. Surf porn sites at work. Generally not a good idea. But Tea party, anti Semitic, or racist sites? If they happen to be aligned with the bosses' political/social agenda, no problem.
How is that right? I mean, I feel a lot less comfortable sitting next to someone immersed in fundie Xtian crap than the Naked News.