Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   

   Eric Goldman (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:06pm

   
   

   Of course, unblocking the sites would only solve part of the problem. There may not be much interest among USPTO employees in reading websites so antithetical to their existing views. Eric.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   

   Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

   
   

   The USPTO is a real government organization, right? Not like the US Chamber of Commerce who are just a bunch of assholes who want to pretend they're part of the government.
   
   A US government organization not only blocks sites like the EFF and the ACLU, they have an entire category labeled "Political/Activist Groups". That's not an overactive filter, that's intentional. I'm fairly sure that qualifies as a true violation of the First Amendment. Plus that shows bias to one group of people over another, something the US government should not be doing.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3.  

   

   6, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:23pm

   
   

   It is actually a third party company called "blueshield" iirc that does the filtering.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4.  

   

   E. Zachary Knight (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

   
   

   Re:

   I have heard of them. However, they only block what they have been told to block. So the USPTO is still the one doing the blocking.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5.  

   

   Chosen Reject (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

   
   

   Re:

   The first thing I thought was "Why are they blocking political/activist groups at all?"
   
   Blocks on porn at work? Sure.
   Facebook and other time wasters? Fine.
   General blocks on all things not directly related to work? Okay.
   Political/Activist sites? Wait, what?!

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:29pm

   
   

   why would it be disturbing when it is to be expected? as with almost everything, if it speaks out in public interest, it's subversive behaviour. wont be long before all rights that were fought for are removed and the public are treated as they were 100+years ago, as slaves to the rich. the difference will be that colour will not be a prerequisite.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7.  

   

   DannyB (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:39pm

   
   

   Re:

   At least all of the poor 99%'ers will all get equal treatment under the law. And no discrimination based on anything other than net worth.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8.  

   

   Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 1:44pm

   
   

   Re:

   6...Just curious if the USPTO has such a WiFi policy and where a copy can be found.

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9.  

   

   btr1701 (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

   
   

   Blocks

   > A US government organization not only blocks
   > sites like the EFF and the ACLU, they have
   > an entire category labeled "Political/Activist
   > Groups". That's not an overactive filter,
   > that's intentional. I'm fairly sure that qualifies
   > as a true violation of the First Amendment.
   
   Homeland does the same thing. Ours also have blocked categories for "Sports", "Humor/Games", "Personal Pages" and most bizarrely "Educational/Research".

    

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 2:06pm

    
    

    Probably set up to keep people from leaking information

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

11.  

    

    Chronno S. Trigger (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 2:10pm

    
    

    Re: Blocks

    We talking Homeland the company or Homeland Security the government group?
    
    When you block "Educational/Research" do you block all educational and research pages or just the ones that promote evolution while allowing all the creationist pages threw?
    
    My point is that the USPTO is a government organization blocking one type political speech while allowing the opposing political speech. I could believe it was an oversight or just an over active filter, if it blocked all "political/activist" pages.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

12.  

    

    James Love (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 2:15pm

    
    

    Update on USPTO web filter

    Update: At 5 pm the USPTO called and said that the public access wifi network was using a filter, provided by a contractor, to block "political activist" sites. This filter was not used by the network providing Internet access for the USPTO staff. After our meeting, the USPTO reviewed its policies, and has removed the filter. USPTO says the filter was implemented by a contractor, and no one we talked to at USPTO was aware of who was being blocked. In any event, the filter has been removed.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

13.  

    

    Mike Masnick (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 2:22pm

    
    

    Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    Added an update to the post...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

14.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

    
    

    Re:

    You mean to antithetical to their campaign contribution and revolving door favors.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

15.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 3:28pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    so *

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

16.  

    

    6, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:24pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    PTO sets policy, it is up to the blueshield guys to try to implement it to actual sites. They just do the best they can. Trust me, nobody in the PTO was all like "omfg the eff must be blockzored!"

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

17.  

    

    6, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:25pm

    
    

    Re: Re:

    What do you mean "such a WiFi policy"? I'm not sure what you're asking about WiFi for.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

18.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 4:27pm

    
    

    "This filter was not used by the network providing Internet access for the USPTO staff."
    
    Yeah that's what I thought because it isn't blocked on my machine.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

19.  

    

    Scott, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:05pm

    
    

    Don't you just love insecure people who lobby so much to control the populace to find self-control. We shouldn't fear them only pity them.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

20.  

    

    Designerfx (profile), Sep 18th, 2012 @ 5:34pm

    
    

    Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    I find the excuse of a contractor being quite questionable. While people usually ignore filters since they have other sources of internet access (thus nobody complains/cares), it's not likely that a contractor would have set up network filters from opendns/websense unless the USPTO runs entirely off contractors for IT - in which case someone had to be given direction to do so - just as someone was given direction to remove the filters.
    
    I'm guessing there's a bit more to this story - I don't think it's likely a big deal, but I don't think the USPTO is being very forthcoming here.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

21.  

    

    Julio, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:34pm

    
    

    No wonder why they fail so much at research

    With limited information resources, no wonder why they are so bad at research and let anyone patent already implemented ideas (specially foreign technologies).
    In many cases you can find precious information in some weird places and it's our work to discern which one is correct.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

22.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 6:42pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    "Political Activists must be blocked"?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

23.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 18th, 2012 @ 8:18pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    I mentioned it only because the person posting the article mentioned that the notice appeared when trying to use a WiFi system at the USPTO. Frankly, I would have been very surprised if the USPTO actually had such a policy. As it turns out, apparently things have been resolved to the person's satisfaction.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

24.  

    

    Seegras (profile), Sep 19th, 2012 @ 4:08am

    
    

    Polarized Glasses

    Splendid idea. Block out all dissenting voices, grassroots-efforts, groundswell and criticism. And then get totally perplexed when an issue surfaces on the mainstream press.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

25.  

    

    Ven, Sep 19th, 2012 @ 6:44am

    
    

    Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    Why did they need contractors?
    I would think that if the USPTO had staff skilled enough to evaluate tech patents then they should have been able to ask to have one of them set up a wireless guest network.
    Should we find it concerning that the agency tasked with dictating what technologies a company can and can't use, does not have the internal knowledge to make basic use of this technology?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

26.  

    

    Anonymous Coward, Sep 19th, 2012 @ 7:54am

    
    

    Re: Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    Clearly you've never worked for the federal government...

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

27.  

    

    techflaws (profile), Sep 19th, 2012 @ 9:01am

    
    

    Re: Re: Re:

    Trust me,
    Why?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

28.  

    

    techflaws (profile), Sep 19th, 2012 @ 9:02am

    
    

    Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    "The intern did it." Pathetic.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

29.  

    

    6, Sep 19th, 2012 @ 10:19am

    
    

    Re: Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    "I would think that if the USPTO had staff skilled enough to evaluate tech patents then they should have been able to ask to have one of them set up a wireless guest network."
    
    Obviously, and indeed I would have done so myself (for a modest fee). But that isn't how the government works bro. Everything must be official, everything must cost huge dollars.
    
    We need contractors for lots of things though, IT is just one thing. They are paid less than examiners also.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

30.  

    

    Designerfx (profile), Sep 19th, 2012 @ 12:36pm

    
    

    Re: Re: Re: Update on USPTO web filter

    contractors do what they are contracted to do.
    
    So either there was an ambiguous directive given to the contractor, the contractor acted out on their own, or they were told to do this. The question is: which one?

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

31.  

    

    Bob Robertson, Sep 20th, 2012 @ 9:17am

    
    

    Not at all surprised.

    No one wants to be reminded that their job is actively destructive to innovation, the economy, and liberty.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

32.  

    

    Paul Keating, Sep 20th, 2012 @ 11:51am

    
    

    Re:

    Eric, I am both glad you were the 1st comment and saddened by your response - unless I take it as tongue in cheek. I am absolutely shocked at this filter message. I personally do not care what the F the individuals in the USPTO think or do not think about their particular political or other views. I DO want them to have access (even if just in case there are a few enlightened souls). I cannot believe this does not become viral. It is absolutely shocking to the senses. It also explains a great deal about the disconnect between politics and reality.

     

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment