We are Borg.....Comply

[Boingo]

TSA to Block "Controversial Opinion" on the Web (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20009642-10391695.html)

Don't dare disagree with the government.  This is not a repeat of the Third Reich Stalin's Politburo anything bad in history.

[Belthus]

I read the article. Yeah, so what? I don't know why they even bother writing a story. It's not news.

Every workplace has policies about how employees spend their time and how they can use the facilities. OMG! I can't look at porn on my work break! Censorship! Obama=Hitler!

[Boingo]

I read the article. Yeah, so what? I don't know why they even bother writing a story. It's not news.

Every workplace has policies about how employees spend their time and how they can use the facilities. OMG! I can't look at porn on my work break! Censorship! Obama=Hitler!

First off, why do you see this post as a dig on Obama anyway?

Second, I can see a reasonable policy might block things like "gaming," "criminal activity" and "extreme violence" but "Controversial Opinion" is WAAAAYYY too vague and just begs for abuse.

It appears the good people at TSA agree (for now):

TSA Reverses "Controversial Opinion" Web Policy (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20009804-10391695.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

[Belthus]

First off, why do you see this post as a dig on Obama anyway?

Who was the leader of the Third Reich? Hitler. Who is the leader now, in this supposedly Third-Reich-like gubmint? Obama. Same with that Politburo analogy, vis a vis Stalin and Obama.

Second, I can see a reasonable policy might block things like "gaming," "criminal activity" and "extreme violence" but "Controversial Opinion" is WAAAAYYY too vague and just begs for abuse.

It appears the good people at TSA agree (for now):

TSA Reverses "Controversial Opinion" Web Policy (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20009804-10391695.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

Sure, it's vague, but again, why should we care? It's a workplace issue, not a regulation on what people can access on their private computers at home. I bet that most private sector companies have similar policies.

[avidteen13]

but again, why should we care? It's a workplace issue.

And to think, here I was getting all worked up about voter apathy.

[Belthus]

but again, why should we care? It's a workplace issue.

And to think, here I was getting all worked up about voter apathy.

Do you agree with the OP that this workplace rule that affects what employees in one federal agency do on the job is somehow a threat to everyone's civil liberties?

[avidteen13]

Yes.  If the government is allowed to block opinions that it doesn't like, what's to stop them from blocking controversy in all federal workplaces?  In schools?  In homes?  You can't let them stifle beliefs.  You get dystopia.  1984 is a clear example.

With Nazi Germany, they took away Jews' rights to buy from certain stores.  People figured, "Oh, it's not a big deal."  Then other liberties were cut...

[Belthus]

Yes.  If the government is allowed to block opinions that it doesn't like, what's to stop them from blocking controversy in all federal workplaces?  In schools?  In homes?  You can't let them stifle beliefs.  You get dystopia.  1984 is a clear example.

With Nazi Germany, they took away Jews' rights to buy from certain stores.  People figured, "Oh, it's not a big deal."  Then other liberties were cut...

Have you ever worked in an office? This kind of policy is standard. You are supposed to stick to computer use that is job-related. However, checking your private email and looking at the news on your break is tolerated.

What if some guy at the office logs onto a hate group site, like a KKK forum? Later he kills a Black co-worker. When the police go through his computer, there is going to be an outcry. Why did the government pay for this man's access to the KKK site at his desk during office hours?

[avidteen13]

You have a point. 

Notice it's only "Controversial Opinions" that are blocked.  They never said what constituted a controversial opinion.  Maybe a Republican websites advocating gun ownership is blocked.  The opposing viewpoint is obviously the middle of the road viewpoint and is the only view that workers should be able to see.  That would be legal.  "Legal" does not always mean "fair".

[johannhowitzer]

It's also common policy in companies across the globe to prohibit employees from posting negative opinions about the company in public places, including Facebook, Myspace, Twitter... if you're caught, it can mean termination.  Ohnoes, a violation of the First Amendment!

And since that's about what you do in the off-hours too, I find it to be more of a concern than this story.  Which is to say, this story isn't a concern at all.  Use of company property is entirely separate from intrusion into activity in the home.  Good ol' unlawful searches 'n' seizures amendment.

[Boingo]

What if some guy at the office logs onto a hate group site, like a KKK forum? Later he kills a Black co-worker. When the police go through his computer, there is going to be an outcry. Why did the government pay for this man's access to the KKK site at his desk during office hours?

Well that's a straw man if I ever saw one.  First off, I'm no fan of the KKK.  And the illegal act here is not viewing a KKK forum, it's killing a person (black or otherwise.) However, the KKK are not an illegal group and membership in such or simply viewing their website should not constitute a threat to the TSA. 

After all, if somebody is doing his job correctly, who cares what he believes or who he associates with?

Probably a more real threat is the silencing of dissent.  Is it controversial to view a forum that disagrees with the policies of the president?  Should that serve as grounds for termination in this company, AKA "the government"?  Remember, the government employee serves the people of the nation, not the elected office holders.

[Belthus]

Well that's a straw man if I ever saw one.  First off, I'm no fan of the KKK.  And the illegal act here is not viewing a KKK forum, it's killing a person (black or otherwise.) However, the KKK are not an illegal group and membership in such or simply viewing their website should not constitute a threat to the TSA.

After all, if somebody is doing his job correctly, who cares what he believes or who he associates with?

Probably a more real threat is the silencing of dissent.  Is it controversial to view a forum that disagrees with the policies of the president?  Should that serve as grounds for termination in this company, AKA "the government"?  Remember, the government employee serves the people of the nation, not the elected office holders.

Dissent is not being silenced. Government employees are free to spend their leisure time on their own computers as they please. There are certain restrictions, such as not being able to run for public office.

What government employees do on government facilities is subject to more scrutiny than private sector workplaces. Things that might make people shake their heads in the private sector will bring howls of protest, letters to the editor, calls to Congress, etc. if done in government.

There is a larger issue of how much power employees have vs. how much power employers have. Sadly, employees have very little power in the workplace, and I would like to see that situation change in employees' favor. One factor has been the decline of unions, and I believe that TSA bans unions. The federal government in general is a more union-friendly place than most, but the Department of Homeland Security is not. In general, you will find workers being screwed over in the private sector much more often than you will in the federal government.