Drudge blocked on congressional computers

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,308
5,729
136
Wife works as a field rep for the house of representatives. Called me this a.m. and access to Drudge has been blocked on their computers "for their own protection." March, Drudge was falsely accused of infecting machines and employees were asked to not visit it. IMO, that's scary, no matter which party is in charge.

With influential proponents recently calling for a newly regulated world wide web, we got a preview of how that might look last month after both Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com were completely blocked to many Internet users in New Zealand.
Click to expand...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/drudge-...tion-coincides-with-cybersecurity-agenda.html

One could say that she should be working instead of looking at Drudge but being in tune with the news is part of her job. She gets a 6 or 8 news papers a day.
 
M

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,400
6,078
126
Mother keeps child at home after neighbor was accused of being a rapist. The accusation turned out to be false.
 
W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
I work in the private sector, and we're blocked from any and every website that even *might* have a virus.

- wolf
 
B

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Of course it's blocked. We can't have reality getting in the way of the Obama leftist propaganda now can we?

All kidding aside, I will only view Drudge at work and have the site blocked on all my home PCs. That site is a spam magnet with popups and all kinds of crap. Only my employer's multiple firewalls are solid enough to keep my PC from being infected.
 
W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Drako said:
So you have no web access at all then?
Click to expand...

We use filtering software which is overbroad. If a website had malware in the past, or in some cases was rumored to have it, we're blocked. My employer takes zero chances of getting an infection on our network.

The subtext of all this, btw, is that the employer also doesn't want us doing a lot of web surfing during work hours.

- wolf
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
woolfe9999 said:
We use filtering software which is overbroad. If a website had malware in the past, or in some cases was rumored to have it, we're blocked. My employer takes zero chances of getting an infection on our network.

The subtext of all this, btw, is that the employer also doesn't want us doing a lot of web surfing during work hours.

- wolf
Click to expand...

I think his point was with your language, if it were really 'any risk', you couldn't go to any web site. What you meant is, even relatively low risk, but not zero risk as the standard.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,308
5,729
136
woolfe9999 said:
I work in the private sector, and we're blocked from any and every website that even *might* have a virus.

- wolf
Click to expand...
Understandable. I do the same at my office. She's in a meeting but I'll get her to see if she can pull up some more left news sites which would show bias. My point still being that if the peeps in charge(left or right) block access to what they don't want you to see, that's scary.
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
highland145 said:
Understandable. I do the same at my office. She's in a meeting but I'll get her to see if she can pull up some more left news sites which would show bias. My point still being that if the peeps in charge(left or right) block access to what they don't want you to see, that's scary.
Click to expand...

Depends on the reason and selectivity in the blocking.

In a private workplace, they generally have every right to block based on partisan views, but this is public.

If you want a real scandal on this topic, look at the Armed Forces radio being much friendlier to the right-wing propaganda like Rush Limbaugh than the other views getting 'equal time'.
 
W

woolfe9999

Diamond Member
Mar 28, 2005
7,164
0
0
Craig234 said:
I think his point was with your language, if it were really 'any risk', you couldn't go to any web site. What you meant is, even relatively low risk, but not zero risk as the standard.
Click to expand...

Technically correct, but basically a nitpick. The software we use is so overbroad that the risk is *near* zero. We're a business with 25 employees, each of whom has web access, and we've never had an infection. And since the boss doesn't want us doing frivolous web surfing, so much the better that the software is overbroad. That point is, I think, relevant to the OP's concerns. Many employers block all kinds of websites on the pre-text that it is for security reasons when in fact they just don't want their employees surfing the web.

- wolf
 
her209

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
11
0
Now lets see a list of other sites that were blocked for the same reasons.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,308
5,729
136
Craig234 said:
Depends on the reason and selectivity in the blocking.

In a private workplace, they generally have every right to block based on partisan views, but this is public.

If you want a real scandal on this topic, look at the Armed Forces radio being much friendlier to the right-wing propaganda like Rush Limbaugh than the other views getting 'equal time'.
Click to expand...
Agree.

Don't see the Armed Forces Radio issue being any more of a scandal. The issue is if one party uses undue influence to push it's agenda/ideals/politics. Government controlled media doesn't appeal to me and wouldn't to anyone at odds with the government.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,308
5,729
136
woolfe9999 said:
Technically correct, but basically a nitpick. The software we use is so overbroad that the risk is *near* zero. We're a business with 25 employees, each of whom has web access, and we've never had an infection. And since the boss doesn't want us doing frivolous web surfing, so much the better that the software is overbroad. That point is, I think, relevant to the OP's concerns. Many employers block all kinds of websites on the pre-text that it is for security reasons when in fact they just don't want their employees surfing the web.

- wolf
Click to expand...
Told my last employee that if she surfed facebook/myspace/etc I'd fire her a** specifically because she did get a virus and put my livelihood was at risk.
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
highland145 said:
Agree.

Don't see the Armed Forces Radio issue being any more of a scandal. The issue is if one party uses undue influence to push it's agenda/ideals/politics. Government controlled media doesn't appeal to me and wouldn't to anyone at odds with the government.
Click to expand...

The reason I say more of a scandal is for a number of reasons:

- A larger number of people affected
- The type of people affected a captive audience who lack access to other media
- The type of people affected a non-political group rather than political appointees
- IMO stronger evidence of bias so far in the selection of content.

Not to mention also IMO that Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge are crap content.

Do we also give Scientologists equal footing to provide content as an 'equal side' without any regard for the quality of content?

But I'd still air the Rush Limbaugh show to the troops for 'freedom of speech' - I just find it a worse wrong to censor better content than to censor him, but I wouldn't censor either.
 
highland145

highland145

Lifer
Oct 12, 2009
43,308
5,729
136
Craig234 said:
The reason I say more of a scandal is for a number of reasons:

- A larger number of people affected
- The type of people affected a captive audience who lack access to other media
- The type of people affected a non-political group rather than political appointees
- IMO stronger evidence of bias so far in the selection of content.

Not to mention also IMO that Rush Limbaugh and Matt Drudge are crap content.

Do we also give Scientologists equal footing to provide content as an 'equal side' without any regard for the quality of content?

But I'd still air the Rush Limbaugh show to the troops for 'freedom of speech' - I just find it a worse wrong to censor better content than to censor him, but I wouldn't censor either.
Click to expand...
Looking at the AFNRadio programming, I'm seeing plenty of CNN, NPR, Alan Colms, Katie Couric, etc. There may have been an issue during Bush but doesn't appear to be now.
http://myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/AFNRadio.aspx

As far as the content being crap, it depends on your point of view. The 50 left sites I listed would, imo, have crap content. I don't listen to Rush at all. Talks way too much.
 
C

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
highland145 said:
Looking at the AFNRadio programming, I'm seeing plenty of CNN, NPR, Alan Colms, Katie Couric, etc. There may have been an issue during Bush but doesn't appear to be now.
http://myafn.dodmedia.osd.mil/AFNRadio.aspx

As far as the content being crap, it depends on your point of view. The 50 left sites I listed would, imo, have crap content. I don't listen to Rush at all. Talks way too much.
Click to expand...

FWIW, the issue I'm describing does go back to Bush, but not one of those sources is 'liberal' or a counterpart to Rush Limbaugh, with the arguable exception of Colmes, bleh.

Thom Hartmann, Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy (!), are examples who would be such content.

(Ed Schulz would put himself on the list, eh.)

I'm not sure what all is offered now though; I wouldn't be surprised if the list has improved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom