TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

July 6, 2010 -

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is apparently blocking certain websites from the federal agency's computers, including Internet sites that contain a "controversial opinion," according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.

The email, which was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon, said that as of July 1 TSA employees would not be allowed to access websites that have been deemed "inappropriate for government access" in five different categories. These categories include chat or messaging, "controversial opinion," criminal activity, extreme violence (which apparently includes cartoon violence) and gaming.

The email doesn't apparently define what a lot of this content is in particular and it most certainly doesn't mention web sites by name, though I would imagine sites with strong opinions about the government are on that list. The email did say that some of the restricted web sites violate the "Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy."

Source: CBS News

Posted in

Comments

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

This is news?  Corporate America has been doing this for over a decade.  About time government kept up.  The internets can be very distra...

...sorry my boss just came by, gotta go!

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

Well I don't mind they do this.  People who work sometime get a little lazy by going to website at time when they are supposed to be doing work not having playtime on your job.

 

 

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

For some reason, I don't feel sorry for them. Maybe it's because now, instead of spending time surfing the Internet at work, they might actually have to do the damn jobs my taxes pay for. I actually have to work to get that money, so I don't feel too sorry for someone losing his forum access at work.

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

I staunchly support the rights for people to use their own bandwidth as they wish (part of why I'm so against the Australian gov's net filter program) but when someone else is not only paying you to work but paying for the bandwidth, you follow their rules.

I don't disagree that the rules seem draconian but the staff really do have complete freedom here.  They can choose to work for another organisation that will let them browse to wherever (or, ya know, buy a smartphone... = )

I would have thought that with all the threats being fretted about (little old ladies carrying large bottles of hand cream and all that) that the TSA wouldn't have enough time to scratch themselves let alone sit around browsing the web... ; )

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

Freedom dies a little more...

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

What is this nonsense? This has nothing to do with freedom. These people can still access whatever websites they want from their own computers on their own time. What this is about is stopping employees from wasting time and taxpayer money fooling around online when they're supposed to be doing their jobs. There's no right to be on your favorite Internet forum when you're supposed to be working.

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

I'm sorry.  I didn't realize the Constitution protected the rights of government employees to do things WHILE AT WORK that have absolutely nothing to do with their jobs.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

Personally? They're at a government job and they don't need to be doing that kind of stuff at work.

 

unless its a really slow day :P

 

seriously though they shouldn't be needing to do that stuff while at work.

╔╦═╣Signature Statement╠═╦╗

If you don't like something I said in a post, don't just hit the dislike, let me know your thoughts! I'm interested in knowing everyone's opinions, even when they don't mesh with my own.

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

I wonder what website are under then controversial option. Also why does the article give me the impression that they aren't banning pron sites from TSA computers.

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

I'm sure porn is covered under their "Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy."

===============

Chris Kimberley

===============

Chris Kimberley

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

I'd like to see a list of some of those 'controversial opinion' websites, if only to determine if the list is a blanket, stifling both sides of the political spectrum, or if it's following someone's agenda - liberal or conservative.  If either, it better be the former.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: TSA Blocks Employee Access to 'Controversial Web Sites'

I'm sure that websites teaching efficient methods of goose-stepping are not on the banned list.  What's interesting is that gaming and "controversial opinion" are listed, but not porn?  I guess we all know what they're REALLY looking at on that "x-ray monitor"!

***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***

***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
james_fudgethere's some inside baseball stuff going on in this Andrew - likely some stuff we don't know10/20/2014 - 3:30pm
E. Zachary KnightGreat musical video about online trolling. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nS-QeM2ne810/20/2014 - 2:46pm
Andrew EisenBut again, this whole thing is just too damn vague to form an opinion on.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenWithout the original communication, it's impossible to say if it could honestly be misconstrued as a friendly suggestion rather than an employer directive. However, it appears that subsequent emails should have cleared up any doubt.10/20/2014 - 2:40pm
Andrew EisenThose aren't the owner's words, they're Chris Dahlen's. For what it's worth, we do see an email from Gonzalez stating "you've already broken the only rule we set for you!!!!!!!"10/20/2014 - 2:38pm
Michael ChandraSo really the guy's own words strike me as "wah! How dare you disagree with me!" behaviour, which is the sort of childish attitude I am unfortunately not surprised by.10/20/2014 - 2:17pm
Michael ChandraCorrect AE, but then again the owner's own words are about "wishes", not about an order. No "we told him not to", but going against his wishes.10/20/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonyup. sadly that has been true for awhile.10/20/2014 - 2:10pm
james_fudgewelcome to 2014 politics. Increasingly fought online10/20/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightIt is honestly a shame that anyone has to publicly state they are against such vile behavior, but that is the sad life we live.10/20/2014 - 1:46pm
E. Zachary KnightDecided to publicly reiterate my opposition to harassment campaigns. http://randomtower.com/2014/10/just-stop-with-the-harassment-and-bullying-campaigns-already/10/20/2014 - 1:45pm
Andrew EisenMichael Chandra - Unless I overlooked it, we haven't seen how the directive to not talk about whatever he wasn't supposed to talk about was phrased so it’s hard to say if it could have been misconstrued as a suggestion or not.10/20/2014 - 12:35pm
Andrew EisenHey, the second to last link is the relevant one! He actually did say "let them suffer." Although, he didn't say it to the other person he was bickering with.10/20/2014 - 12:29pm
Neo_DrKefkahttps://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/SxFas https://archive.today/1upoI https://archive.today/0hu7i https://archive.today/NsPUC https://archive.today/fLTQv https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 11:21am
Andrew EisenNeo_DrKefka - "Attacking"? Interesting choice of words. Also interesting that you quoted something that wasn't actually said. Leaving out a relevant link, are you?10/20/2014 - 11:04am
quiknkoldugh. I want to know why the hell Mozerella Sticks are 4 dollars at my works cafeteria...are they cooked in Truffle Oil?10/20/2014 - 10:41am
Neo_DrKefkaAnti-Gamergate supporter Robert Caruso attacks female GamerGate supporter by also attacking another cause she support which is the situation happening in Syia “LET SYRIANS SUFFER” https://archive.today/F14zZ https://archive.today/Wpz8S10/20/2014 - 10:18am
Neo_DrKefkaThat is correct in an At-Will state you or the employer can part ways at any time. However Florida also has laws on the books about "Wrongful combinations against workers" http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/448.04510/20/2014 - 10:07am
james_fudgehe'd die if he couldn't talk about Wii U :)10/20/2014 - 9:16am
Michael ChandraBy the way, I am not saying Andrew should stop talking about Wii-U. I find it quite nice. :)10/20/2014 - 8:53am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician