UK Commons official: Report of 300,000+ porn accesses from Parliament isn't "accurate"


#1

[Permalink]


#2

"Really! It's only maybe a half of that!"

I'm almost impressed. That's still an excellent people-to-porn ratio.


#3

It's preferable to imply that their computer security is so low that the browsers are routinely pwned into visiting porn sites?


#4

Between porn at Parliament and digital gambling on the floor of the US Congress ... I might just want to be a politician.


#5

Yeah, my wife didn't fall for that one either.


#6

I would imagine that viewing porn while at work in most jobs would be a disciplinary matter... though, as this is the UK parliament, with a high level of public school boys, discipline probably featured quite highly on their hits.


#7

It is kind of amazing that the excuse is so familiar. "What? Oh that, yeah the browser just does that. Internet, nasty place."


#8

I wonder who was on holiday for the entire month of February...


#9

Yeah it was really 3,000,000


#10

What is the accurate figure then, if 300,000 can be so easily dismissed? She must know what it is, otherwise she'd just be guessing.


#11

all the guys explained how when you open an email sometimes you get hundreds of pop ups of porn. Some kind of virus thing. No further discussion necessary. On order of those at the top. More important things to spend our time on. Right?! Very well, back to work!


#12

Well, Parliament is kind of old-fashioned. They have to do SOMETHING with all that newfangled broadband Internet stuff.


#13

Do you support the porn-ban in UK? Give your vote:

http://pollandia.com/results.php?id=23


#14

Because it didn't look easy enough already?


#15

While I strongly doubt that the final result will do anything but suggest that parliamentary supporters of the Great Firewall of Cameron are anything but hypocritical blowhards, I would be curious to know what an 'access' is for the purposes of the censorware system they use on that network.

Having examined more log-spew than I care to think about from the (legally mandated, CIPA-compliance, not my idea or my idea of a good idea) censorware device at work (in the course of diagnosing and correcting false-positive blocking of all kinds of stuff, those things are crazy immature and largely about CYA), an 'access' could potentially mean a single HTTP request that gets denied. Loading a typical webpage can involve anywhere from a handful to hundreds of those. Depending on where in the loading process the censorware halts things (eg. does 'GET goatsandstoatsandsaucyhuntresses.com/index.html' get shot down immediately, or does index.html get loaded and then the GETs for each image and script on that page get shot down?) you could log anywhere from one to dozens of 'accesses' for a single action that a human would call an 'access' (ie. clicking a link or typing in a URL). On a browser that does some link prefetching this effect would be amplified.

I have no wish to defend parliament(even if you are going to be a bunch of dirty old men while on the clock, haven't there been enough scandals around your creative interpretations of your expense accounts that you can afford your own damn cellular data plan?); but one should be skeptical of ambiguous wording in contexts where words are likely to mean domain-specific things rather unlike their common everyday use, whether the conclusion be a flattering one, or a piece of NSA whitewash.


#16

Nor did mine so you ain't alone there buddy.


#17

I worked at a Fortune 50 company with the following policy: "No non-company related pornography."

No, I never found out what company related pornography was.


#18

Did the company have any direct involvement, or ownership of some flavor, in hotels, hotel entertainment systems/services, cable systems or content providers, or publishing activities (print or video)?

My impression is that it's less pronounced now, since the internet has eaten at the margins and made wide-scale distribution by relatively tiny entities much easier; but in the not-so-distant past, all kinds of Respectable Corporate Entities either had subsidiaries in the media distribution business, or had direct operations which (usually discretely) pulled in some nontrivial income from porn. (Most notable instance I can think of recently is the whole flap with Romney, Mr. Squeaky-clean-family-values trying to distance himself from Marriot, whose in-room entertainment systems stocked (and made good money on) porn of various flavors.) I think that they've since stopped, mostly because selling $12 porn films to somebody who has a laptop and internet access is fairly futile; but they did until recently.

A lot of the actual production was always done at arm's length, since that could be done by small-scale outfits and the sleaze factor was high; but content distribution, porn not excepted, is a part of the corporate family in quite a few places.


#19

Yeah, I was wondering this. In other words, is it hits or pageviews? But even if it's hits and each page has 100 requests, the number of accesses is still pretty big for parliament.


#20

Nope, it is a large medical company. Some of the divisions made feminine hygiene products, others made stuff for breast and prostate cancer, and so on. I'd rather not consider any of the research done there as porn.