TSA Rescinds Controversial Employee Web Site Access Policy

July 7, 2010 -

Just days after it was revealed that the Transportation Security Administration planned to block employee access to web sites with "controversial opinions," the federal agency rescinded the new policy. The ban on "controversial opinion" sites, issued late last week was part of a more general TSA Internet-usage policy blocking employee access to gambling (they called them "gaming" sites) and chat sites, as well as sites that dealt with extreme violence or criminal activity.

But as bloggers - including many conservative blogs that picked up the story from Drudge Report - a small handful or privacy advocates and the American Civil Liberties Union questioned the loose language of the policy, the TSA reconsidered its messaging and withdrew.

"There's always a danger that threats are used to justify over-broad restrictions on speech and other freedoms," said Jay Stanley, an American Civil Liberties Union privacy expert, before the TSA announced it was dropping the idea. "But it's disturbing to see the TSA get the balance all wrong on that."

According to a Washington Post report, TSA spokeswoman Lauren Gaches said that the agency's revised "acceptable use" policy for Internet access on the agency's network was designed to block sites "that promote destructive behavior to one's self or others."

"After further review, TSA determined the 'controversial opinion' category may contain some sites that do not violate TSA's policy and therefore has concluded that the category is no longer being considered for implementation," she said in an e-mail to The Washington Times.

But before rescinding the guideline, agency officials noted that the policy changes were "intended to address evolving cyberthreats," but did not do a very good job of explaining exactly what "controversial opinions" they were talking about and whether Internet sites with viewpoints contrary to the Administration’s would be targeted under the new guidelines.

 

Source: Washington Times

Posted in

Comments

Re: TSA Rescinds Controversial Employee Web Site Access ...

I don't get how this is a controversial issue. TSA as an employer has every right to restrict internet access from their computers at their workplace however they like. Why should they have to allow any kind of freedom to surf the web to their employees? Do you want your tax dollars being spent allowing these guys to surf the web, find some hot topic then spend an hour arguing with other employees if they agree with it or not when it has nothing to do with their job to begin with?

Re: TSA Rescinds Controversial Employee Web Site Access ...

You are correct, but the issue at hand with the "controversial sites" restriction was that nobody knew exactly what sites they were.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

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

Re: TSA Rescinds Controversial Employee Web Site Access ...

So the company is supposed to release a list of controversial URLs that employees can review and not visit?

No, it's called green screen where I work. If you try to go to a restricted site, a green screen comes up instead. We don't have a resource somewhere to find out what sites are blocked, and there is no recourse to unblock a site. It's the company's right to say what their employees should and should not be doing on the internet on company computers and company time.

No controversy here that I can see.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Is King right? Should all games adopt the free-to-play model?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MaskedPixelanteNumber 3: Night Dive was brought to the attention of the public by a massive game recovery, and yet most of their released catalogue consists of games that other people did the hard work of getting re-released.04/17/2014 - 8:46pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 2: If Humongous Entertainment wanted their stuff on Steam, why didn't they talk to their parent company, which does have a number of games published on Steam?04/17/2014 - 8:45pm
MaskedPixelanteNumber 1: When Night Dive spent the better part of a year teasing the return of true classics, having their big content dump be edutainment is kind of a kick in the stomach.04/17/2014 - 8:44pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.giantbomb.com/articles/jeff-gerstmann-heads-to-new-york-takes-questions/1100-4900/ He talks about the future games press and the games industry. It is worth your time even though it is a bit long, and stay for the QA. There are some good QA04/17/2014 - 5:28pm
IanCErm so they shouldn't sell edutainment at all? Why?04/17/2014 - 4:42pm
MaskedPixelanteNot that linkable, go onto Steam and there's stuff like Pajama Sam on the front-page, courtesy of Night Dive.04/17/2014 - 4:13pm
Andrew EisenOkay, again, please, please, PLEASE get in a habit of linking to whatever you're talking about.04/17/2014 - 4:05pm
MaskedPixelanteAnother round of Night Dive teasing and promising turns out to be stupid edutainment games. Thanks for wasting all our time, guys. See you never.04/17/2014 - 3:44pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the consequences were not only foreseeable, but very likely. anyone who understood supply demand curvs knew that was going to happen. SF has been a econ/trade hub for the last hundred years.04/17/2014 - 2:45pm
Andrew EisenMixedPixelante - Would you like to expand on that?04/17/2014 - 2:43pm
MaskedPixelanteWell, I am officially done with Night Dive Studios. Unless they can bring something worthwhile back, I'm never buying another game from them.04/17/2014 - 2:29pm
PHX Corphttp://www.msnbc.com/ronan-farrow/watch/video-games-continue-to-break-the-mold-229561923638 Ronan Farrow Daily on Video games breaking the mold04/17/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoAh yes, because by building something nice they were just asking for people to come push them out. Consequences are protested all the time when other people are implementing them.04/17/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew Wilsonok than they should not protest when the consequences of that choice occur.04/17/2014 - 1:06pm
NeenekoIf people want tall buildings, plenty of other cities with them. Part of freedom and markets is communities deciding what they do and do not want built in their collective space.04/17/2014 - 12:55pm
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician