MattW

Dept Work and pensions

Story here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3600686.stm

However Liberal Democrat spokesman Steve Webb called for "zero tolerace" and for all 227 to be sacked. "It is assisting filth and paedophiles and is a security risk. There has to be a zero tolerance approach."

Nice quote considering the story goes on to say

"In the majority of cases where monitoring has picked up apparent inappropriate use, further investigation shows that staff innocently followed a link from another site and were unaware of its content."

suprabeast

so 2,000,000 web pages were accessed by 227 employees...


thats only 8100 pages each! ! not bad!

Scooby-Doo

So they employee people to sit there and monitor the surfing activities of staff who had open access and viewed over 2,000,000 pages of ****. Why didn't they just install a firewall and be done with the issue in the first place.

Tiggs

hmmm...**** = paedo is an interesting leap.

they need to get out out more (or stay in with some good ****!)

ajm

"2 million pages of ****" probably means 2 million individual server hits which would include images etc. One "graphical" page could easily constitute many hits, especially as browsers open multiple connections to speed up page loading.

What makes me laugh is the reports you see that try to measure time spent online. An employee who visits two pages an hour apart could be interpreted as spending an hour reading the first page!

BlkKnight

there was an interesting case the other month where a peado got off by saying something along the lines of:

"I did not do it. There was a possibilty that a self-destructing trojan downloaded the data onto my machine and removed it's self"

wez_sti

where do these narrow minded idiots come from that run our country???

nothing wrong with healthy 18+ consenting ****, they're just wierd 40+ virgins who still blush when someone says '*****'

so depressing watching the house commons when they are arguing like a bunch of school kids, trying to get one up on the other bloke stating a point.

pathetic, and the worst thing is we pay their wages.....

paulr

Ditto.

Scoob99

iTrader: (1)

Ditto Again

Markus

one of the chaps here was asking me about whether we monitor the company net traffic, asked him why and he said that he had followed a few links a friend had emailed him and they led to some rather dodgy sites. Told him not to worry as we don't monitor the stuff, and even if we did, I'd be the one doing it, and of course I'd make sure that items were removed from the logs

These people should really have learnt to suck up to their sys admin a pint or two, or a curry once a month really does to wonders for having items scratched from the web logs.

BOFH? Moi?

On a more serious note however. The Liberal MP talking about ZT, lol, well, apart from the total irony of him being a so called "Liberal" MP, what a load of tosh, you would find it very time consuming to enforce a ZT policy on this type of thing.

Examples? Well, let's say a friend from here emails me some dodgy powerpoint file, I might not actually open it, but it could be seen as though I downloaded it, same goes for someone emailing me some dodgy pictures, I did not request them to be emailed to me, so it's not my fault now is it!

Plus of course there are the oh so lovely pop-ups, spy-ware, and autodailers, all of which could possible cause it to look like you're being a raging net pervo

Some people really do need to lighten up a bit. OK, if we were talking kiddie **** here, or seriously offensive ****, then fair enough, sack the people, if of course it was proven that they were conciously viewing/downloading it. If it was a genuine error (dialer or miss-click) then just tell them to be more careful, and get IT to instigate some measures to prevent against pop-ups and dialiers.

MattW

Too true Markus

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

I also work for the government, but our management get around the problem by simply not allowing us internet access for "security reasons" (trans: IT branch are too ****ing clueless to set up proper security). That said, I know a couple of people who have been disciplied because someone sent them a dodgy e-mail. Bear in mind you have little control over what your friends send you - particularly the first time, before you've given them a b*ll*cking for getting you in trouble.

But the other issue surely is that these people are using time paid by the tax-payer to surf pr0n? If the issue is using works time to carry out personal tasks, then that's a legit (if heavy-handed) reason to punish.

You also need to remember that many of the images involving consensual legal-age adults are still actually illegal to see in this country. The laws on what is offensive (and thus illegal) are pretty strict compared to the rest of Europe.

M