LA Times Doesn't Trust Reporters To Surf Web Safely
from the no-unfettered-access dept
Reasonable people can disagree about the wisdom of placing web filters on school computers, though the fact is they don't work, and it would be more effective to just teach kids about good judgment. Apparently, some newspapers are grapping with the same issue as it's been revealed that the LA Times also cordons off some sites from its employees. And it's not just porn that Times reporters are barred from. The paper even prevents access to a site that tells people how to get past web filters. It seems absurd that reporters, who often need to go to the web to research stories, face restricted web usage, and more importantly that they're not trusted with their web surfing. If any LA Times reporters are still looking for information on outsmarting filters, they should just ask the nearest high-schooler, who has probably figured it out long ago.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
It's not about trust
I'm flattered by your assumption that reporters are more tech-savvy than the average person, but we're not. Besides, even careful Web users can be victimized. If a reporter *really* has to go to a porn site or a p2p network or something of that ilk, he/she can use a machine that's off the network and outside the firewall. Otherwise, he/she is just putting tomorrow's newspaper at risk.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: The problem...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem...
Beg pardon? I work for HP and can access Craigslist, Yahoo and Google just fine. I don't know where you're getting your information.
The only filtering I've ever run across at work is they have filtered out "mp3", but it was never even remotely effective. For example, for a time, RollingStone.com posted all of their images for their website in a subdirectory of a subdirectory etc. etc. etc. and somewhere in there was an "/mp3/". Well, at work, the browser would choke on that. But if you were to Google "mp3" you could pull up virtually any site (apart from mp3.com).
Generally, if you do what you're supposed to and not waste a ton of time on the web, you should be ok. That is, if you work for a company that actually trusts their employees.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem...
Yes, we recognize that plenty of companies use web filters. The issue though, is using web filters for *reporters* who often need to access all sorts of sites for work purposes.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's all because of HR
I know the (former) Los Angeles Times employee who set this up, and it's not as if the Times *wanted* to do the nanny thing for their employees... the way I hear it, the human resources bigwigs got one complaint too many about boobies during work hours and "something" had to be done.
Never heard rumor of anybody being fired from there after being caught by the filter, plus it errs on the side of permissiveness, doesn't even block BoingBoing.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
It's may be more cut & dry than you think ...
And, as someone else mentioned, reporters aren't the only employees. I'd wager that alot of the reporters probably work from alternate locations without webfilters, too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: The problem...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: It's not about trust
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: the problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment