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Security Administration planned to block employee access to web sites with "controversial opinions," the federal agency rescinded the new policy.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

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MattsworknameInfo: What dictionary says and what people today use that word for are not the same07/30/2015 - 3:30am
Sora-ChanPixels was a movie I was interested in for a week. A week after it got announced it was announced Sandler was in it and i went "... naw"07/30/2015 - 3:13am
Infophile@Goth: Apparently you're in the minority, from what reviews I've seen. Haven't seen it myself though, so I can't say how valid the reviews are. One question: Did they do Space Invaders at any point?07/30/2015 - 3:05am
Goth_SkunkJust came back from Pixels. Loved it. I knew I would.07/30/2015 - 2:33am
InfophileFor reference, see https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/accountable - It just means you have to answer for it. It has nothing to do with being punished for it.07/30/2015 - 1:47am
Mattsworknameohh, gods that game is pretty, just not my style these days07/29/2015 - 11:49pm
Andrew EisenUbisoft's Child of Light.07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
MattsworknameEnjoy man, Im gonna be playing split second myself07/29/2015 - 11:45pm
Andrew EisenSorry. That just slipped out. Off to play.07/29/2015 - 11:43pm
Andrew EisenWords have meanings, people! Use the damn dictionary! They're online! They're free! Arrggghhhh!07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Andrew EisenThis is just depressing. I'm gonna go play video games.07/29/2015 - 11:42pm
Mattsworknameproliferation of the whole "internet movment" thing, people dont debate, they try to attack and go after peole to shut them down, casue it's easier then trying to debate the issues07/29/2015 - 11:39pm
MattsworknameWhen you break it down, what it is is the shifting of the media lanscape and how it effects news sites and other groups. once upon a time, you could have run that same article and it would have created debate, not online campagns, now, cause of the07/29/2015 - 11:38pm
MattsworknameCall it waht you wil, but thats how its viewed, not just by me, but by just about EVERYONE right now. Media, new networks, they dont' want to call it what it is, soe they call it "accountability"07/29/2015 - 11:34pm
Andrew Eisen"Gamasutra... had to pay" Yes. That's EXACTLY what it was. "Accountability" is and always was horse poop.07/29/2015 - 11:29pm
MattsworknameSo to speak07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
MattsworknameThats why this happened, you get people who felt hurt, marginalize, bettrayd, or otherwise offended, and they don't actually look at teh facts, they just attack and try to get there Blood for Blood07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
Mattsworknamefalse. Weather you think the article was right or not, there was a large group who felt taht gamastura and the other media sites had to pay for there actions, weather they deserved it or not07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
Andrew EisenTrying to yank advertising over a single opinion piece on a site that I would bet money most of the offended (if you will) didn't read, is no more an attempt at accountability than the Brown shooting's subsequent riots.07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameMy point andrew is that it's not about them, its about the people responding to the situation. THe brown shooting was eventually shown to be completely justified, but the "Black lives matter" meme kept on rolling despite all it's intiall claims being07/29/2015 - 11:26pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician