Thanks for nothing PineRidge.....LOL

[Inspector507]

I was approached by my Administrator yesterday saying she needed to meet with me early this morning. I asked her "What for?"
"For alleged internet abuse by visiting a "banned" website."
"What? Me? What kind of banned website?"
"Weapons"

Now, lets go back 3 weeks in time. There has been a big stink in the media about our city employees having internet access with no one monitoring their use. I agree that if the employee is wasting time on the net when they should be working, something should be done. We found out in all the media investigation that the city has owned Surf Control for a number of years, but just never used it. They decided to turn the software on and sent out memos/directives that if any employee was caught on the net during work hours for personal use they could face discipline, although "limited personal use" could be overlooked if during a down time with the exception of gambling/weapons/dating/chat/adult sites which were off limits. I had checked in at TBN on quite a few occasions, if things were slow, you all know how TBN junkies are. But if course TBN is none of the above, it's rated family friendly. I usually limited it to before work hours which was acceptable. And there are only 4 sites that I visit during that time. Yahoo mail, CBN, TBN and SSB Tractor (for the Yanmar posts).

Now, go back to this morning. I get to her office and she pulls out a list that shows I made 6 hits on a certain website which they labeled a "weapons related". It happened to be PineRidge's site. I don't remember looking at any images posted here from Mike's site in the last 3 weeks and the last time I was at his main site was over a year ago. Mike sells only non-firing collectibles from what I can find (on my home computer /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif ). But still, I face discipline for these supposed hits. At first I thought something came through from the google ad crap or adsearch here on TBN, but that was not the case. I have made a formal request for the log from which they allege I was on a "weapons site". I also asked for the exact URL of those 6 hits, that way I can check it at home. I suspect it may be images that he linked to from here showing his tractor/remotes/whatever else tractor related.

Mike, I'm sorry if you think this is directed at you, I just wanted others to know that some legit sites can be interpreted wrong if they work for a security conscious firm. Besides the fact I had a rotten day having this accusation thrown at me /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
But, if they are going to make that accusation, they better be able to prove it. I just hope that when I get the log, if I ever do, that the pictures/hits pan out to be of his nice blue tractor. But then again, if not they would be something from his website of collectibles, such as non-firing replicas.

 

[PineRidge]

Oddly enough Inspector this has happened before and as you already know we do not deal in actual weapons, that can fire bullets, BB's, or the like. All of our prop guns are considered "non-guns" by the Federal Government so there are no permits required to purchase any. There are a few areas that these props cannot be sent because of local restrictions, but we make that fact known upfront.

Occasionally even the good folks at eBay will accidentally pull one of our auctions because our prop guns/rifles look so real. And if you were strolling down the street carrying one of our Thompson machine gun look-alikes and the police spotted you then there could be a real problem for you indeed for inciting panic.

Some folks look at anything that resembles a gun and automatically label it as a weapon. And while I don't condone taking one of our props out in public I see no harm in folks using them for display purposes in their own homes.

The walls of my office are covered with rifle and pistol props. In the bunch is one real weapon and to this day not one person has been able to pick the real McCoy from the bunch, so they do look authentic.

I do find it odd that because you visited our site for tractor related information that they would automatically brand you as an offender. If I were you I would invite them to look at our tractor related links and let them judge for themselves. An awful lot of folks do look at the tractor stuff without ever looking at any of our e-commerce offerings.

 

[Inspector507]

<font color="blue"> If I were you I would invite them to look at our tractor related links and let them judge for themselves </font>

Good idea, but if they can't even look at the 6 hits I supossedly made and determine what I was acutally doing, then they'd never be able to see what my intentions were on here. I doubt if they would ever see the forest, too many Deere /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[getut]

If you need assistance from someone who works in Information Systems security, let me know. Just the fact that you visit a site that Pineridge also visits is enough to cast doubt on their accusations. Even linked images are enough to trigger those web monitoring software... ie. you never actually went to a site, but instead saw an image posted on one site that draws its data from a "bad" site on their list.

Be informed if they accuse.. it will help.

 

[Inspector507]

<font color="blue"> Even linked images are enough to trigger those web monitoring software </font>
That's what I think happened.

<font color="blue"> Be informed if they accuse </font>
That's what I'm doing. Anyone can make a public records request of my internet use. I'm going to use that option. I have asked for the complete URL of all 6 hits on Mike's site. I have also asked for the exact dates and times of said hits. I have asked for a 24 hr log in printed form of my internet use for the alleged date. I have asked for the employee's name that compiled the list of "suspected abuse".

Here is the their defintion of a "banned website"

• Web sites containing explicit descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory activities
• On-line gambling or betting web sites
• Web sites featuring depictions of full or partial nudity
• Web sites advocating the performance of violent acts against federal, state, or local
government authorities or that advocate violence against or harassment of particular
groups of people or individuals due to race, age, disability, political affiliation, gender,
religion, national origin, physical attributes, or sexual preference
• Web sites containing materials that are in violation of applicable federal, state, or local
laws
• Web sites advocating domestic terrorism and/or containing instructions or directions on
the manufacture or procurement of illegal explosive devices, chemical weapons,
biological weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction

I can't see anywhere in that list that would decribe Mike's website.

I have no doubt that I'll be exonerated when this all shakes out. My wife says I'm obsessing about this, maybe I am, but I'm looking at stopping co-workers from being unfairly accused because someone in the department of technology is too inept to fully investigate the charges they are making. Could even be looked at as libelous in court.

 

[getut]

Be sure to look closely at the timestamps. Humans are slow... if you see all the urls in the log, if a site visit is truly human initiated, you can see full second or longer pauses while a user decides what to click on. If you see a url, say from TBN, and then only milliseconds later a url flash by for an offending site, then they don't have a leg to stand on. A linked image caused the url hit.

Typical usage patterns look like. Long pause..... user initiated hit to a main page... then a flurry of activity as all the urls are parsed for liked images and the like.

Even if the main site is an offending site, they still don't have a leg to stand on unless you lingered and browsed. Even if you did by chance manually click on a link to a bad site by mistake, then the logs will show how long you stayed before you moved on. If it was only a couple seconds.. long enough for your brain to register that this site may not be work friendly, and then you moved on, then they really can't aks for any more than that.

Any person or company that uses the logging as a simple proof that someone went to an offending site without taking into account the usage patterns shown in the log has someone making the decisions that doesn't understand the technology.

 

[HuckBB62]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">(

Here is the their defintion of a "banned website"

• Web sites containing explicit descriptions or depictions of sexual or excretory activities
• On-line gambling or betting web sites
• Web sites featuring depictions of full or partial nudity
• Web sites advocating the performance of violent acts against federal, state, or local
government authorities or that advocate violence against or harassment of particular
groups of people or individuals due to race, age, disability, political affiliation, gender,
religion, national origin, physical attributes, or sexual preference
• Web sites containing materials that are in violation of applicable federal, state, or local
laws
• Web sites advocating domestic terrorism and/or containing instructions or directions on
the manufacture or procurement of illegal explosive devices, chemical weapons,
biological weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction

)</font>

You see, their liberal wee pea brains already have them wrong, especially where you're concerned. Even by their guidelines, you could visit any gun forum or site as long as it did not "advocate domestic terrorism and/or containing instructions or directions on
the manufacture or procurement of illegal explosive devices, chemical weapons,
biological weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction

Any legal weapon is just fine. You can go onto target shooting forums, hunting forums, reloading forums, gun manufacturer forums etc. etc.

Something else that bothers me about the city you work for, they lump sexual activity with excretory activities. Who's warped here?

I know that it's taxpayer money involved here but this is absurd. They're willing to let a ten year old look at anthing and everything on a public library, paid by taxes computer but then I read this. Egads!

 

[OkeeDon]

I'm offended by your branding of these attitudes as "liberal". I'm a liberal, and my attitude towards this policy is much the same as yours. Brand it "idiotic" or "illogical" or whatever description you care to use, but your use of the term "liberal" is a misunderstanding of what liberalism really is.

 

[Inspector507]

Robert,
That's why I want the log. To see when the hits happened in relationship to me being on a legit website. I want the exact URL's because they were probably something PineRidge linked to showing his tractor mods.
He knows full well that this post is not about him or his website. It's about the "******" they have watching over me.

edited to remove any similarity to IS security workers, living or dead /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[getut]

I'm offended by the term "idiot" being used in a sentence with Information Systems security workers being implied. I resemble that remark (the Information Systems Security part... not the stupid part... just don't ask my wife, she might say different) /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif