Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Missile Defense Staff Told To Stop Watching Porn

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the first-world-problems dept.

Government 187

An anonymous reader writes "John James Jr., director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, who is responsible for the nation's missile defense system, recently sent out a one-page memo warning employees and contractors to stop using agency computers to visit pornographic Web sites. That's right; apparently they were watching the wrong type of bombshells."

cancel ×

187 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Why? (5, Funny)

Githaron (2462596) | about 2 years ago | (#40870009)

Why is this considered news?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870027)

Because porn.

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#40870833)

Whatever...they tell me to stop looking at porn all the time too.

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Desler (1608317) | about 2 years ago | (#40870039)

Because they were playing with the wrong type of missiles?

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870645)

Well, still better if only a meat-rocket goes off, instead of a minute-man. ...wait

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870835)

be the first recorded case of premature ejaculation that made the earth move for her too

Re:Why? (5, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#40870199)

Because watching pr0n isn't being productive like those of us who read Slashdot.

Re:Why? (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 2 years ago | (#40870443)

What else should missile defense staff do to pass time?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#40870203)

The real question is, why arent these less than half a dozen getting fired?
If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870243)

The real question is, why arent these less than half a dozen getting fired?

If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required.

Because they're government civilians. They're damn near impossible to fire. It almost takes an act of congress to remove a GS civilian from a position.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

kubernet3s (1954672) | about 2 years ago | (#40870269)

actually, yeah, most of us would be out on our asses if our employers caught us looking at porn. The reason people tag links NSFW is because you can get fired for even accidentally clicking on non-pornographic nudity.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about 2 years ago | (#40870363)

actually, yeah, most of us would be out on our asses if our employers caught us looking at porn. The reason people tag links NSFW is because you can get fired for even accidentally clicking on non-pornographic nudity.

So these guys might have just been looking at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , or perhaps at Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ? Caution, some Wikipedia pages (like those two) might actually be considered NSFW in really incredibly prudish places, simply because they contain photos of human genitalia (but non-prurient photos).

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871085)

hey is copying a picture to Wikipedia from Metart.com (I recognize one of those pics) a breach of copyright law...

Re:Why? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871215)

Thanks. I just got fired.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870697)

Whaddya mean, "non-pornographic"?

As you read this, someone out there is jerking it to goatse.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

magarity (164372) | about 2 years ago | (#40870331)

The people who need to be fired are the network administrators who aren't filtering external traffic properly in the first place. And why not fire this director who doesn't see that's the true source of the problem?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 2 years ago | (#40870607)

Why blame the network admin? He didnt make you go to those sites. Sure you could say that if it was filtered they wouldnt go to the sites but that is not the point. These are adults, working in what is a pretty important function with major security concerns. There is no one to blame but those who typed in the address and clicked enter.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#40870651)

The people who need to be fired are the network administrators who aren't filtering external traffic properly in the first place.

That doesn't really fix the problem. It sounds like a good idea until you realize you're pitting the network admin against the users. His job isn't to get involved with a game of cat and mouse. Most admins grow tired of being expected to have an airtight physical defense when there's no complementary policy in place.

A better response is to have the network admins place reasonably good filtering in place. Not airtight. Not filters that interfere with legitimate traffic. Filters with a zero-false-positive. Then if someone is still watching porn, it's easy to demonstrate that they're taking steps to bypass the filtering. Make it clear to the staff that deliberately bypassing the filters is a fireable offense.

This solves most of the problem all at once. No collateral damage, no borderline unfair calls, reasonable expense, and accountability where it belongs.

It also makes the perps easier to catch, since they don't have to spend hours trying to different things before they finally find the inevitable crack in the armor. They'll try basic things like proxy or direct IP etc. Those are easy to prove as deliberate while at the same time being easy to detect. If you're placing the entire onus on the net admin, the users can dig at your defenses all day long without so much as a wrist-slap, and when they finally discover another way, they've' not only beat you, you may have a difficult time noticing you've been beat. And then you are the bad guy for having "allowed" them to violate policy.

I've been in charge of cat and mouse before. I'd set something up, they'd find a way around it. I'd add another net. They'd stop for a bit and then they'd find a way around it. Rinse and repeat. All the while the manager wouldn't bother to yank one of them into the office and discuss the perils of working hard to break company policy. The filters finally got tight enough that the manager started having problems with some of his downtime, and then things really got weird. You don't want to be here.

"against company policy" needs to mean "you don't do that here", not "we're going to try to stop you from doing that here".

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870923)

That's a technical solution to a management problem.

Re:Why? (1)

Local ID10T (790134) | about 2 years ago | (#40871113)

No. This is not a technical issue, it is a personnel issue.

On the technical side we can block access to sites by URL, IP, or keyword... but there are ways to get around these blocks, and implementing/maintaining these controls takes time and money away from more useful projects.

It is far better to instruct employees that such activity is not allowed, and discipline (including termination if necessary) those who do not follow the policy.

I can see an argument for the case that in a defense environment there should by default already be network usage monitoring and access control sufficient to prevent such misuse.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871293)

I'd agree it's not the net admin's fault. Even the best filtering gets false positives and false negatives. And people will always try (and usually succeed) in finding a way around the filtering. Kick user butt, warn regularly and fire a few if you really want to decrease the problem

Re:Why? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 years ago | (#40870669)

If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required.

So taking breaks is good for productivity - unless you're a government employee?

Re:Why? (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | about 2 years ago | (#40871223)

"If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required."

Filling various positions is required in porn worth watching.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871267)

"If they have time to watch porn, then the position they are filling is not required."

Out of the multitude of agencies within the U.S. government, I'd think it would be fairly obvious that staffing levels at the U.S. Missile Defense Agency wouldn't be based upon the workload of a "typical" day. You'd want it staffed at levels that can cope with a "shit hits the fan" day. If we pay 90% of these people to sit around and pull their puds every minute of their career, but they're able to react quickly enough to save lives in the event of a nuclear attack, or quickly deduce an apparent "attack" isn't what it appears to be and prevent nuclear war, I'd call that money well spent. The stakes are WAY too high to staff this agency for rainy days.

Re:Why? (2)

ppanon (16583) | about 2 years ago | (#40870263)

Because flash animations and other movie formats have been used as vectors for malware in the past. So if they're using missile defense computers to watch porn, they are potentially infecting critical defense computers with trojans that could be exploited by an enemy.

I suppose that if they're bringing their commercial DVDs, or personal home movies through the security checkpoints it might be OK, but then they would need to explain their collection to their wives/SOs.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

jank1887 (815982) | about 2 years ago | (#40870279)

because of this tidbit in the Bloomberg article:

"Using what is called steganography, Cunningham said, a programmer can embed malicious computer code that infects computers, opens ports, steals data or gains access to networks when photos, videos or other files are downloaded."

Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...

Re:Why? (1, Troll)

xlsior (524145) | about 2 years ago | (#40870733)

Unlikely as it sounds, it's definitely possible... For example, a number of years ago a bug in the windows gdi rendering system could allow arbitrary code execution when viewing a malformed jpeg picture: http://tinyurl.com/c5z3rfy [tinyurl.com] And later, an even easier exploit came along where a legacy printer macro file format (don't remember the extension) simply renamed to jpeg would allow the execution of a script when the 'image' was viewed in Internet explorer since both file formats were supported by the same windows decoder libraries.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | about 2 years ago | (#40870821)

I don't think the GP was claiming that it doesn't happen. Image formats are relatively complex, and compressed audio and video formats doubly so. If you're going to have a security hole in an OS or a browser, odds are good that it will be in a codec somewhere.

That said, what we have here is a pretty egregious misuse of the term steganography. Steganography refers to hiding data inside other data. A trojan image file that exploits a bug in your browser to load malware isn't steganography because there is no actual image. There's no hiding. It is merely the misrepresentation of one type of data as another type of data, which is a trojan horse, not steganography.

Steganography would be Chinese dissidents using image files that contained a subtle watermark in the least significant bits to send coded messages to one another, or someone embedding a piece of software in the low order bits of an MPEG stream. Those examples meet the core requirement that the enclosing data be at least ostensibly plausible data. Note that opening such a photo or MPEG stream reveals a photo or a movie. It does not execute anything, because if it did, the secret payload wouldn't be very hidden, now would it? :-)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870891)

!!!! WARNING !!!!
Link is goatse! (Stop fucking using short urls you bastard. There's no fucking good reason, and we like to know where the fuck the link is going. OK?! You don't stop and I'll come to your house and kick you a bit.)

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871157)

At one point the only way to get in a playstation portable with a higher firmware was through a libtiff exploit: display the picture, crash the PSP, execute code that was embedded in the picture. Of course that required a lot of assumptions re the execution environment (which was OK for standard device).

Re:Why? (1)

Whorhay (1319089) | about 2 years ago | (#40870791)

I seem to remember reading about an indestructible cookie that some academic had created. It was actually a number of cookies sprinkled around the system. They checked on eachother constantly and in the case that one was deleted the others would recreate it. One part of it was actually a graphic file, possibly a GIF if memory serves.

Re:Why? (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#40871093)

Now, THAT's news. So, now, instead of malware writers using steganography to hide commands or payload data accessed by normal executable malware code, we have steganographic malware that autoexecutes just by being downloaded! I'll get started on the GIMP payload filter...

I wish I knew what the guy really meant, because that's pure bullshit.

Images that "autoexecute"??? The only thing that it might reference is some overflow in in whatever displays the image. But that is certainly not "steganography".

Or of course, there is the old trick of "install this codec to view Anna Kournikova blowjob video! Is anyone who works on missile defence really that dumb? There certainly are malware infested porn sites. But the images are just images.

But I guess knowing what they did with Stuxnet, they are being hyper cautious. In missile defence, paranoia is in the job description.

Re:Why? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870395)

Why is this considered news?

It's news to me that what are supposed to be professional soldiers/airmen have to be reminded not to engage in non-work related activity while on duty. (Whatever happened to "You can review the field manual during periods of inactivity. No, you absolutely cannot read the newspaper while on duty.")

It's news to me that people are using what are probably supposed to be secure or semi-secure systems to browse non-work-related sites on the public Internet.

It's news to me that the government's response to the above was to send a memo instead of busting them all back to private and assigning them to toilet duty.

Re:Why? (2)

datapharmer (1099455) | about 2 years ago | (#40871013)

How is the president supposed to tweet the launch codes if they don't have internet access?

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870599)

Because these are volitile times, and there is a good chance we will soon be at war with Russia and China and maybe India

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870695)

The climax is apocalyptic

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870765)

Because the US military require their boys to be full of vigour and spunk.

America Fuck yeah!

Re:Why? (1)

IceNinjaNine (2026774) | about 2 years ago | (#40870953)

I don't know about you, but when I surf porn at my missile defense job I kick it old school.

Say what? Nike Ajax?

Sheeeit.. say WHAT? Nike Herc?

Pfftt.. I got your "Herc" right here! Nike Zeus?

How 'bout I Sprint [youtube.com] with his homeboy Spartan [youtube.com] .

Too bad neither of these [wikipedia.org] were hit to kill and packed nukes.

Re:Why? (1)

rodrigoandrade (713371) | about 2 years ago | (#40871045)

The fact the DoD hired an imbecile who can't configure a proxy to block access to porn IS news to me.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871089)

"US Missile Defense Staff Told To Stop Watching Porn"
"No problem!" says US Missile Defense Staff, "What is you present location?"

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871137)

you dont get it? its gift for smutty one liners

Oh Comeon!

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871195)

If they go blind , they cant do the job the taxpayer expects of them!

Also if they still have dual key two nuts launching a rocket isnt news?

the right idea (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870017)

make love not war baby!

Re:the right idea (5, Funny)

DickBreath (207180) | about 2 years ago | (#40870213)

During a war, making love is what results in a war baby.

Re:the right idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870741)

Clearly he's advocating condoms during wartime.

WTF slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870041)

Really? Did this just get through because of the 12 year old level humour at the end?

Where the fuck is the news for nerds? No one gives a shit about office memos about not watching porn.

Fuck.

Re:WTF slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870385)

It's not about office memos, it's about porn you insensitive clod...

Those naughty workers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870055)

They are the real boobs here!

Missile Porn (0)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#40870067)

they have a missile... in their pants

In wonder if... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870095)

...this means our missile defense has been shooting blanks this whole time?

it became a problem (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40870097)

It because a problem when some of the computers started getting viruses and trojans from the porn sites.

That's what the first article says. The second article says that wasn't the reason. I guess this is why it's a waste to read the articles.

Re:it became a problem (4, Informative)

AaronW (33736) | about 2 years ago | (#40870175)

In that case I think that they should be more worried about the religious sites [tomsguide.com] .

Re:it became a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870401)

In that case I think that they should be more worried about the religious sites [tomsguide.com] .

Excellent. So I can use the phrase, "Religion is like a virus...." in everyday conversation? ;)

Re:it became a problem (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40870291)

It because a problem when some of the computers started getting viruses and trojans from the porn sites.

Nothing against porn sites, but it IS a huge problem if their workstations are able to connect that easily to the global Internet. That's NOT supposed to be allowed in this sensitive environment. Then again, we're talking about the whole MDA bureaucratic personnel, not about the few NORAD staffers.

Re:it became a problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871163)

I thought Trojans were supposed to prevent viruses

Why not? (3, Interesting)

shaitand (626655) | about 2 years ago | (#40870099)

Not that this is really news worthy but who cares if they are watching porn? This is a legitimate job that has to be staffed 24/7 and probably requires about 20min worth of total combined labor in a typical year. Being the military that is increased to maybe a few days labor worth of redundant checklists over the course of the year.

Re:Why not? (2)

mkkohls (2386704) | about 2 years ago | (#40870267)

Not that this is really news worthy but who cares if they are watching porn? This is a legitimate job that has to be staffed 24/7 and probably requires about 20min worth of total combined labor in a typical year. Being the military that is increased to maybe a few days labor worth of redundant checklists over the course of the year.

Having done jobs where your sole purpose most of the time is just to be there waiting I understand the lack of things to do. Still Gotta love the fact that beyond the normal workplace squimishness their main concern was viruses and malware, which porn sites have actually gotten a lot better about policing these days.

Re:Why not? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870281)

Then they can buy their OWN computer to do it on cant they?

Or are you comfortable with missile defense computers looking at porn sites (which have been consistent virus vectors in years past)? Even if those are not hooked up to the main computers all it takes is one mistake...

Also when you sign up to the military you sign away rights. You also sign on for people telling you 24/7 what to do and where to pee.

When I used to run a network. I told people do what you want on your own time and on your OWN hardware. I do not care what you do then. On this network we do not do that, its not work related unless you are in the porn industry...

There is nothing wrong with telling people NO sometimes...

Re:Why not? (2)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#40870365)

Even if those are not hooked up to the main computers all it takes is one mistake...

But perhaps not watching porn increases the likelyhood of making a mistake? Who knows what they'll do when they get really bored and have no porn, video games or other distraction, they'll probably start screwing around with the missile systems...

Re:Why not? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870317)

Please mod parent up.

Indeed, as long as people do their work and fulfill their duties, why shouldn't they watch porn?

Re:Why not? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870415)

Oh, yeah - and YOU'RE going to be willing to push that button after Lance has been there jerking off all day. Fuck that - let somebody else launch the missile, I'm going to go get some chlorox and a gallon purel before I even think about touching it.

about those sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870105)

OK this idiots do not know that all those sites are loaded with malware?

OH well boys will be boys.

cue to the missile jokes.... (5, Funny)

schlachter (862210) | about 2 years ago | (#40870111)

Johnson: [notices Dr. Evil's spaceship on radar] Colonel, you better take a look at this radar.
Colonel: What is it, son?
Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--
[cut to the sky in two jets]
Jet Pilot: Dick!
Dick: Yeah?
Pilot: Take a look outta starboard.
Dick: Oh, my God! It looks like a huge--
[cut to a forest with 2 birdwatchers]
Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker!
Bird-Watching Man: [raises his binoculars] Oh, where?
Bird-Watching Woman: Wait! that's not a woodpecker. It looks like someone's--
[cut to a boot camp]
Army Sergeant: PRIVATES! We have reports of an unidentified flying object! It is a long, smooth shaft, complete with--
[cut to a baseball game]
Umpire: 2 balls! [looks up from game] What is that? That looks just like an enormous--
[cut to a Chinese school]
Teacher: Wang! Pay attention!
Wang: I was distracted by that enormous flying--
[cut to a concert with Willie Nelson and another guitarist]
Musician: Willie.
Willie: Yeah?
Musician: What's that?
Willie: [looks up] Well, it looks like a giant--
[cut back to headquarters]
Colonel: Johnson!
Johnson: Yes, sir!
Colonel: Get on the horn to British Intelligence and let them know about this!

Clean Code of Conduct (2)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 2 years ago | (#40870127)

It sure is a good thing viruses and malware doesn't come from porn web sites, and also that enemies of the state don't read slashdot. Whew, I feel safer already!!!

Meat Misiles (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870129)

Is not what they should be seeking.

Make Love Not War (2)

jphess2 (817372) | about 2 years ago | (#40870157)

Make love not War....pass the hand cream

doesn't matter.. (1)

CheshireDragon (1183095) | about 2 years ago | (#40870177)

either way they are still watching missiles :/

I get this... But. (1)

mitcheli (894743) | about 2 years ago | (#40870183)

Keep in mind that the folks we ask to stay on that bleeding edge of offense stay in a hole in the ground for 48 hours straight without any access to the world around them besides those systems. Perhaps the director would be willing to see if MWR can chip in some assets? After all, unofficial business is what MWR is for.

No content filter? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | about 2 years ago | (#40870215)

The US Missile Defense agency doesn't have any sort of content filter that could block this type of thing? You'd think they could use a simple whitelisting system - there can't be that many sites outside of *.gov that Missile Defense workers legitmately need to access from work. Let them use a smart phone in the lunchroom (outside of secure areas) when they need to update Facebook (or browse porn).

Re:No content filter? (1)

Daniel_Staal (609844) | about 2 years ago | (#40870287)

This surprises me as well: I work at a government facility, and it's locked down to the point where I can't get a fair number of sites that actually relate to my job, never mind something work-inappropriate.

FTA: Its not that big a problem (1)

oic0 (1864384) | about 2 years ago | (#40870227)

Read that actual article lol. "MDA has more than 8,000 employees, and less than a half-dozen were found to have accessed restricted sites or downloaded inappropriate materials" Not that bad a record IMO, 5 or fewer out of 8,000 employees.

Re:FTA: Its not that big a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870573)

Five is an orgy already buddy. Or a gang bang... BANG, Missiles... hehe.

Another view for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870229)

Big Brother watching you XD

Overblown story (4, Informative)

addie (470476) | about 2 years ago | (#40870285)

The article says that less than half a dozen individuals were found to be accessing inappropriate material. That's out of over 8,000 individuals who work at MDA - one memo was sent out to address the problem.

This is not news.

Check. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#40870289)

From article: U.S. missile defense workers have been warned that porn on the job is not allowed. It's not just a question of public security due to distraction, but there's also the risk of computer security due to malware found on many such sites.

So they're running Windows machines. Check. Thanks for the information. :>

Re:Check. (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40870313)

Wrong assumption. They could as well run Solaris/SPARC with Firefox, and getting infested with XSS and JavaScript viruses.

Re:Check. (2)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#40870417)

Wrong assumption. They could as well run Solaris/SPARC with Firefox, and getting infested with XSS and JavaScript viruses.

Maybe I should expand.... In my comment there is a ":>" at the end. :> = humor.

Re:Check. (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#40870511)

Right, I've missed it (obviously, I don't qualify for watching incoming missiles...). :)

Re:Check. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871211)

Wrong assumption. They could as well run Solaris/SPARC with Firefox, and getting infested with XSS and JavaScript viruses.

Maybe I should expand.... In my comment there is a ":>" at the end. :> = humor.

Oh, that's what that was. I thought you surfing pr0n and you crashed to a DOS prompt! I've been trying to enter commands for hours!

It's not porn... (1)

Sinister Stairs (25573) | about 2 years ago | (#40870299)

It's not really porn they're watching -- it's terrorist missives encrypted in image files.

Image vs. Reality (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 2 years ago | (#40870321)

The military wants an image of a disciplined group of people focused on their job.
Reality the bulk is a bunch of young adults in their sexual prime...

What do you think will happen?

She Electrified Me... (1)

kstahmer (134975) | about 2 years ago | (#40870335)

And obliterated Manhattan when the 20 Megaton ICBM hit New York City.

As if a thousand voices cried out... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870345)

NOOOooo...

These machines must be secure... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | about 2 years ago | (#40870357)

...so from now on, bring you own porn to work in the form of a magazine.

3 Minute warning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870379)

Can't believe no-one picked up on that one!

Why isn't DoD using Websense? (1)

schwit1 (797399) | about 2 years ago | (#40870423)

Not just for blocking porn, but malware.

Thought they were government training films (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870429)

An easy mistake to make

Same thing at the SEC (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870431)

SEC staff were found doing the same thing. Lawyers – senior level people – pulling down 220k+/year [judicialwatch.org] were amassing porn archives. Madoff was still a market maker running an options exchange while this was going on.

More recently the IT managers in Los Angeles have had to tell city 'workers' to stop streaming [dailynews.com] the Olympics due to network congestion.

The less up tight these people are... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870461)

...the safer I feel.

Re:The less up tight these people are... (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40871073)

This goes against the whole slashdot groupthink on this story, but you know what.. I don't care if they are looking at porn or not.

These people are stuck in damn boring situations for long hours and I really don't need or want to know what they do with that time. If they really are using their tech well enough I am guessing a computer would pick up any incoming well before a human could comprend it anyway.

Re:The less up tight these people are... (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 2 years ago | (#40871221)

The less up tight these people are the safer I feel.

Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake.

replace the men in the missile silos with computer (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 2 years ago | (#40870589)

replace the men in the missile silos with computer control so we don't have to deal with this.

Re:replace the men in the missile silos with compu (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | about 2 years ago | (#40870813)

See the following documentary on why this is a bad idea:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086567/ [imdb.com]
It documents an early attempt to remove the humans from the loop, and some of the problems encountered.

Re:replace the men in the missile silos with compu (1)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about 2 years ago | (#40871081)

I'd like to play global thermonuclear war, Joshua....

New Designs (1)

lilfields (961485) | about 2 years ago | (#40870635)

Clearly they are just studying new shaft designs for missiles. We are always turning to nature to inspire us. Maybe we need to lube the rockets before we penetrate mother earth's atmosphere. You would never get such an idea without porn. Science.

strange love (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870801)

Polluting our precious bodily fluids... commie preverts!

Brig. General Jack D Ripper
843rd Bomb Wing
Burpelson Air Force Base

I am not allowed to view porn at work... (1)

The Faywood Assassin (542375) | about 2 years ago | (#40870837)

Adult pornography is not generally illegal, true, but unless you actually work in the industry it probably is not appropriate for the office.

Fairly, however, an employee should be instructed as to what is and is not appropriate for work before they can be disciplined for violating it. I remember being presented with an internet use policy when I was hired, as well as sexual harassment training. So it you are told in advance not to do certain things at work, and you freely agree not to do them, you can then be disciplined for doing said actions.

Otherwise one could argue the old "No one told me porn at work was not allowed!" a la George Costanza.

Worst job ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40870881)

OK, so doing this on military time isn't justified...you sign away a lot of rights when you join the military. But -- can you imagine how awful this job must be? If you really are stuck in a hole in the ground in rural South Dakota for days at a time, and don't do anything other than wait for an order to launch a missile...that's BAD. What do these people do for entertainment?

Seriously, joining the Air Force and getting assigned this duty must be the worst punishment. Even if you're cleaning toilets or being a security guard, you at least have the opportunity to interact with other humans. Here, you're completely isolated and waiting for an order that will most likely never come. The last time there was ever a conceivable situation where we would need to launch an ICBM was the late 80s, and the last time we ever came close to doing anything was the early 60s. Knowing that, wow, what an awful straw to draw getting that duty.

I worked at MDA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40871023)

They have a very restrictive proxy. If it were some regular employees, the proxy would have been updated and they would have been dealt with, The only reason I can see something like this going down is if some of the small number of privileged execs that were bypassing the proxy were doing the porn surfing.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>