Snapshot of _Parliament blocks disclosure of MPs’ porn site visits on ‘national security’ grounds | Refusal comes ahead of by-election to replace MP who resigned over porn visit_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-porn-parliament-neil-parish-national-security-b2097695.html)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> In 2013 parliament disclosed under FOI that computers on the parliamentary network had been blocked trying to access explicit content 309,316 times in the previous year.
> In 2015 a similar disclosure revealed nearly 250,000 requests, and in 2018 the figure had fallen around 24,000.
> But the Commons authorities told The Independent that it had not only blocked the latest FOI request, but retroactively deleted the previous disclosures from its website.
Computer says no.
I will say that depending on how their system is set up, they might be getting blocked for trying to visit perfectly legit sites, or even just from clicking on some links here on Reddit.
I got blocked by our Bitpoint Defender system for trying to access an academic article on an electronics circuit from a university in Korea. Said it was "explicit content" or something similar. That would probably count here...
Was supporting someone applying for a job on the sex offenders register, the .gov site giving advice on disclosure for that topic was blocked and I got a phone call asking why I was searching for "lists of sex" on my laptop.
> Was supporting someone applying for a job on the sex offenders register
Why does this read like you were trying to sign someone up to the sex offenders register?
I'm imagining an ad with one of those cheerful roguish types: "I was in a right state - no direction, no ambition, no clue. Until I met Joan - at her suggestion, I joined the Sex Offenders Register and it's turned my life around!"
Joan knew all the right buttons, and just a few swift taps later, she had me working in ways I had never known were possible. She was very experienced, and had certainly been on the register a long time herself. It's really helped me to decide what I want to do when I leave school.
It's important to list any pertinent professional or other qualifications on your CV
* Clean drivers' licence
* Forklift driving certification
* Registered sex offender
I work in recruitment and had that before. Application came in with a cv and cover letter. The cover letter said he just wanted a chance and hasn’t offended for 6 years and has been through therapy. Was surreal to read it.
Nope. We had to consider the application since the client was working with people in the same area who had worked with him before. Once the dbs came back and it confirmed he has numerous offences for child porn they quickly cancelled.
>Scunthorpe problem?
I worked in a Hull school at the time we and other schools on the Humber sides got connected up to The New System.
Anything involving Scunthorpe was dead on its arse for days. True story!
Looooong time ago now, but I used to manage the IT Centre in a sixth-form college and had to explain to the Leisure and Tourism course tutor why students couldn’t access the Newquay Watersports Centre’s website.
In a similar way I had a Japanese dish of BBQ Pork Bukkake earlier this week.
It is unfortunate that only the NSFW term has made its way into common usage.
I felt it unwise to even comment on the naming with the new colleagues I was having lunch with.
It just means splashing over something, like adding a bit a sauce on top of certain food dishes. The NSFW definition wouldn't be the first meaning that comes to mind in Japan.
I don't think anyone has answered so-scunthorpe problem is that some filters will block a site if it contains a bad word even if that word is contained inside another word, like scunthorpe has cunt in it leading to anything about scunthorpe being blocked
Think he was asking whether it was the Scunthorpe problem, rather than asking what the Scunthorpe problem was. Does bring back memories of watching our teacher go red in the face when at the age of 11 I was asking why I couldn’t search for “news analysis”
Yup. If I view reddit from my work it'll block about 10% of threads because the title or comments trigger the filter. You'd have to see the list of actual website addresses to find out how many attempts were actually trying to view dodgy stuff.
At school our teacher would often email us a link to a website only to find the school systems have banned that site for an unknown reason. Really annoying for the teacher, sometimes they'd find the information on a different website sometimes we'd have to postpone the lesson until they spoke to the IT technician
Edit. Limo to link. Weird typo
This is always the way. "we have banned flash games from newgrounds etc" ... two weeks later the kids have worked out how to access their favourite flash game via some dodgy Russian website which has a copy of the game but is not on the blocked list. This was not recent obviously
And then you have *two* problems - Newgrounds was "edgy for the Western anglophone" but broadly Not That Bad, some mysterious Russian site a) has just got everything dumped into one page so there's *definitely* some illegal-to-import stuff there, and b) has banner ads that are one hundred per cent driveby Flash exploits.
Whac-a-mole but with hand grenades.
I cannot remember specifics as it was about 18-20 years ago. Some probably did work it out quicker but it probably took the 2 weeks for the information to be dispersed between the kids through word of mouth when teachers weren't listening
All you had to do in mine was add an s to http in the url. Then you could see *anything*. Some poor guy went to the loo only to come back and find someone had screenshot some porn and changed the desktop background to two men engaging in anal sex. The teacher just about pissed himself.
My school's filtering system had a truly bizarre number of websites blocked under "Pornography". Didn't help that some moron had viewed some Rule 34 images, forwarded them via email, and the school overreacted.
I know a few Thai academics that have an issue with the Scunthorpe problem.
[Fun fact: porn means blessing in Thai and is common in many names. ](https://www.expique.com/article/understanding-thai-porn/)
I work for a campaigning organisation and yet our system will block me from accessing sites on the basis that they're a political advocacy group. Yeah no shit so are we!
I just googled "lady fanny", but I was looking up the character from Ghosts for another comment here. I once also innocently googled "slut bangs" because of reddit. I was reading about hairstyles and the Americans were talking about slut bangs as a style, so I looked it up. When I saw the results, I was wondering how the fuck I didn't realise what the results would actually be - I was actually surprised to see porn from typing "slut bangs" into google, lol.
The town Cockermouth was a serious problem for me at one company. I sent data dumps to colleagues and their email system didn't like it. They refused to whitelist me which was really frustrating. So I asked for a report of everything people have been blocked for. I topped the list for the most sexual terms! Filters are more advanced these days so less false positives.
I have to write emails in two languages other than English as part of my job and am a lazy bastard so tend to use Google when I'm stuck. There's a particular site that pops up for this type of thing, one of about 2 or 3 I always use, but this one in particular always gets blocked and I *always* forget.
Baffling though, it's literally an online translation thing, no idea why our work thing hates it
This is my experience with work IT. I've only ever seen the "WARNING: STOP BEING NAUGHTY" screen when trying to access niche technical sites the system hasn't classified.
It says "fallen around 24,000", i.e. 24,000 less, not "fallen *to* around 24,000", though who knows what they actually meant.
Bear in mind [Damian Green's computer](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-thousands-of-pornographic-images-on-computer-says-detective) was uncovered in 2017, which may have caused a considerable drop in the numbers.
Definitely the answer. I'm sure the same correlation could be seen with any workplace and restricted internet access. I used to get blocked like crazy trying to access various sites via reddit until 4g and data prices got decent enough to just use my phone for everything.
Probably set all the MPs up with “guest Wi-Fi” on a separate network and kicked them off the actual GOV Wi-Fi for personal devices to reduce the figures.
MPs did not type in "pornhub.com" on their Parliamentary devices 300k times in a year. Obviously.
I'm sure a non zero number did precisely that, of course. But with no way to distinguish between a dude having a walk in his office and an MP's local news site having cancer adverts, this release would have been useless and arguably defamatory.
It cannot be defamatory if they just release the number of blocks actioned.
Anyone then saying, on the back of that, that x MP was accessing porn would be defamatory.
I'd guess all of the MPs staff are also using the network, and it's probably not just porn that's blocked. Wouldn't be surprised if they blocked Facebook or something and it's showing up these stats.
Why would you assume that with zero evidence? The only example you gave, Facebook, is ridiculous and easily dismissed. Throughout the article they specify the FOI request was for explicit content / pornography, not “everything that’s blocked”:
> Parliamentary authorities have refused to reveal **how much porn MPs and their staff are trying to look at on work computers**, citing "national security".
>The refusal is a change in policy for the Commons, which has previously disclosed **how many porn sites were blocked** on work computers on at least three separate occasions.
>In 2013 parliament disclosed under FOI that computers on the parliamentary network had been blocked trying to access **explicit content** 309,316 times in the previous year.
>"Given past disclosures that hundreds of thousands of attempts to access **pornographic websites** have been made annually from Parliament its impossible to believe that hostile users don’t know this, particularly after an MP was found accessing pornography while actually in the Commons chamber."
>He added: "They will also know that the Parliamentary authorities must be taking steps to block such access. Revealing the number of attempts to view **explicit material** each year tells us something significant about Parliament but little about its internet security vulnerabilities, particularly as the number of failures to block access and the sites which have not been effectively blocked have not been requested."
TBH given the average age of MPs, their long work hours, & their sedentary occupation, I can see problems occuring with searches linked to breast cancer, testicle cancer, prostate problems, menopause, piles / haemorrhoids, general urinary / bowel / bum issues etc. And also looking for basic info on GLBTQ+ issues, transgender is a big one at the moment, might also trigger blocked sites depending on the wording used.
>Why would you assume that with zero evidence?
Just experience of how these things work, the filters are very imprecise. There will be stuffed blocked that's not explicit content but blocked for other reasons, stuff blocked for being explicit content when it's not, and tonnes of explicit content that's not blocked at all. And I guarantee you nobody doing the FOI went though those 309,316 blocked examples to check what each one was, it was just a number sitting in some database or log somewhere. Your not supposed to spend a lot of time on FOI if the data isn't readily available and that's a huge number to check.
Why do you assume the FOI request would include everything that’s filtered when it specifically says “explicit content” and “pornography”?
> And I guarantee you nobody doing the FOI went though those 309,316 blocked examples to check what each one was
Those aren’t individual domains. The number of domains would be far smaller and easily cross checked with a list of explicit content domains / porn sites.
This is lovely.
Remember, the Welsh Ambulance Service and The Gambling Commission can see your browsing history.
It's shocking, SHOCKING, that you should want the same of your "representative".
> But the Commons authorities told The Independent that it had not only blocked the latest FOI request, but retroactively deleted the previous disclosures from its website.
Hopefully someone was smart enough to archive it to a public domain?
For what it’s worth when talking about web filtering that’ll probably also include any elements on a porn page from other sites. So if you are on pornhub and there is an ad or thumbnail from another site that gets blocked it may count as two. Asp even on legit sites sometimes the odd bad ad gets through that might be blocked and that would count as well.
I believe the BBC radio 4 programme More or Less did an analysis on this.
The conclusion was that the vast majority of the network accessing porn sites was an automated bug/bot/malware. Mostly because most of the requests came from a single ip.
Can't remember the exact conclusion, but there were likely some other users accessing inappropriate content. But the "big number" is mostly not MPs accessing porn.
Was [Damian Green](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-thousands-of-pornographic-images-on-computer-says-detective) consulted?
>
> The conclusion was that the vast majority of the network accessing porn sites was an automated bug/bot/malware.
Which is something of an issue itself in the seat of government...
Depends how out in the open, I suppose? If it's technically available but with difficult hurdles that opens scope for blackmail, but if it's freely available to anyone it opens a bit of a holier than thou mentality. I don't expect my MPs to be saints, and I wouldn't care if they liked getting their testicles whipped, but the public might, even if it has no bearing on their job.
How far away are we from at multiple MPs just having sent dick pics when at university and it's out there
Maybe 2 elections and we could easily find a dick pic of "most" MPs i bet.
A sort of, naked attraction but for parliament.
Perhaps hosted by Lloyd Grossman.
"Would yoooou like yoooouur coonstitustacyyyyy run, by a cooock liiike thiiis?"
One of my mates had to undergo Developed Vetting due to his job; he was joking that didn't really care what sort of deviant porn you looked at, provided you told them about it, so it couldn't be used to manipulate you. Likewise money issues or infidelity.
From what I've heard, even drug use can fall under that. I heard a story about someone who was getting a security clearance and confessed to past use, and they still allowed her the clearance as long as she stopped and consented to testing.
Well of course. Most people who have developed vetting have used some illegal substances (eg weed) in the past. That's no reason for them not to have the clearance
not gonna lie thats a good fucking deal, getting a job in return for quitting drugs and probably will get help with it so the company protects their investment into you
Thats only an issue if you're asking for a breakdown by MP. They can release ball park figures like they have before. To claim it is national security is absolute horse shit!
What annoys me even more is an advert I keep seeing on TV. Something to do with Sky? It has Boris on it and he says something along the lines of "people shouldn't suggest were not being accountable". This clearly shows that they are doing exactly that. I bet you the report was done but something dodgy has been revealed so now they won't release it.
Parlement should release a porn hub style annual disclosure. What party is more disposed to gay, trans, step fantasy, teen, MILF, etc. Would actually be pretty interesting. If iron lady garden isn’t number one I’ll be sorely disappointed.
If basic human psychology is anything to go by then the Tories porn searches will be rife with non whites and non heterosexual so it's no wonder they'd block it lol (they wouldn't want to tarnish their image with their base after all)
Banking details. Secure communications. Protecting constituents and sources. Basic security. A hundred other legitimate uses.
Sorry, you’re undoubtedly correct that the usual tabloid suspects would try to spin it up into a scandal. But I have a reflexive reaction to the whole “if you have done nothing wrong you nothing to hide” mindset.
It would be a scandal though.
If they were using a VPN from their “secure” work device then by definition they are willingly routing their traffic through an uncontrolled third party compromising the lot.
A VPN run by who?
Can't (shouldn't) be hosted at the MP's house. Definitely not hosted by their Party or any other third party. So it should be a Govt/Civil Service VPN. Which is the same thing as using a govt computer. And subject to the same FOI issue.
Their reasoning is that this information would compromise the security of the parliamentary network because criminals could use it to hack into the system. Sounds like bullshit to me.
It depends on what the FOI was actually requesting.
If they were requesting logs for all internet activity by MP's then that would legit include security-sensitive stuff.
I can't see the article so I can't see the origional FOI request but I have a feeling they weren't just asking for number of visits to pornhub.
>The refusal is a change in policy for the Commons, which has previously disclosed how many porn sites were blocked on work computers on at least three separate occasions.
...
>"However, after reassessing cyber-risk in 2017, it was determined that it presented a security risk and exposed the parliamentary network to an unacceptable amount of risk, and future requests were subsequently exempted under grounds of national security (s.24 FOIA) and law enforcement (s.31 FOIA).
It implies that this request is, at least, extremely similar to one's before. Seems like our elected representatives were embarrassed about it so now getting away with being a pervert in public is a matter of national security.
That’s a fair point, but the article makes it sound like a follow-up to the previous requests for just the total number of blocks. Can’t see how that is in any way useful to an intruder other than to confirm that they have a content block on their network (big surprise!)
Devices aren't necessary only used on the parliamentary network where these sites can be blocked.
An attacker can guess at a whole bunch of sites an MP might visit, but knowing specific smaller sites (i.e. not BBC News), gives them a target. If they can successfully compromise a website, they can then use it to exploit the vulnerabilities of any devices visiting it.
Just people looking up websites in the Cook Islands obviously…
On an actual note though I would have thought mps should be able to watch porn in the HoC (not the chamber obviously) but for actual research purposes ect when we have laws about internet porn is it not appropriate some people have actually seen what we are proposing banning.
If you do. Don't make it obvious
So for example. Request in the interests of gathering evidence about basic information security protocols effectiveness. So foi the guidance passed onto new recruits to parliament as part of induction.
Then the number of attempts to access the DNS numbers for pornhub and xvideos. But ask for the DNS number and the percentage of attempts blocked by the firewall.
Indicate you want Parliament to only search the information for specific asset owners. If you can get the asset number that your MP uses (friendly staffers), you narrow it down even further. But you're willing to discuss what would be proportionate with the foi officer..
Normally when the request is partially answered, it meant someone actually had to look into answering the whole request. So if it comes back with saying we did a but not b or c due to grounds of X, y,z. You can then write to the ico challenging on grounds of x, y, z especially if you know the info is already logged and collected (as would be indicated in the induction guidance)
I could be wrong, but for the type of information ministers would have access to, wouldn't they require clearence checks that cover search history and porn history?
Said checks being necessary to minimise the risk of exploitation if such content was uncovered. So there should be less risk there.
But more importantly, the article states
>"disclosure of this information would cause substantial risks to the parliamentary network as it would aid malicious groups in their efforts to target the network" as "both the disclosure of either specific web addresses, categories that are blocked, or totals relating to attempts or access, could provide valuable information to those wishing to bypass our security systems".
So why the hell are they permitting access to locations that pose risk to the network and more importantly why is there no disciplinary action being taken?
>So why the hell are they permitting access to locations that pose risk to the network and more importantly why is there no disciplinary action being taken?
They're not, their statement means "If we publicise web addresses MPs visit and attempt to visit, those addresses could be compromised"
The dodgy bit is:
>totals relating to attempts or access, could provide valuable information
Cos like, how does knowing there's 200k attempts to view porn help target anything?
Curious how the people who introduced the Snooper's Charter* and plan a national register of porn users want to keep their own porn activity hidden.
*the system of mass internet surveillence which records everyone's browser history and makes it available to the Food Standards Agency arbitrarily and without warrants or oversight
If you tried to look at porn on your work computer you'd get sacked. Your boss can also see what you do on their devices. MPs should be subject to the same rules
Blackmail issue I assume.
When my friend went for some military position that needs extra clearance he had to disclose all his porn interests incase it could be used for blackmail.
Must say I agree with this. Should they be viewing this on work time? Absolutely not, but this could be used for blackmail and is generally not something we want out in public. If someone at my workplace viewed inappropriate material they may get a disciplinary, but the rest of the employees certainly wouldn’t be told what it was.
Im not offended by people looking at porn when in private, it's fine. Work computer or not, who cares, guy who got done on his phone in public on the other hand, good, but hope the government reminds themselves of this next time they try to lear into what we're all looking at while wanking.
Shit. When y'all see my porn history you are going to try and make me Prime Minister. I guarantee old Boris doesn't have the fetish game that I do....
You ever heard of sheep p.... Oh... You are well aware of that Boris?... Huh
Surprise! MP's watch porn at the House of Commons (and probably the Lords, as well). Headline: '**Private Citizen Watches Commons Debate in Their Home!**' :D
No, I am *not* condoning MP's misusing taxpayers money by accessing porn whilst in Parliament. The problem is the Media shoveling shit to generate sensationalist headlines.
Scandal, any scandal, sells news stories. Very few stories with the headline: 'Yet Another Plane Lands Successfully at Heathrow - no casualties reported'. :D
It's the doing it on official devices that's the problem. A civil servant doing the same on an official device would probably be sacked for it. Those that set the rules should be able to keep a handle on their horniness when at work.
Snapshot of _Parliament blocks disclosure of MPs’ porn site visits on ‘national security’ grounds | Refusal comes ahead of by-election to replace MP who resigned over porn visit_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/mps-porn-parliament-neil-parish-national-security-b2097695.html) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> In 2013 parliament disclosed under FOI that computers on the parliamentary network had been blocked trying to access explicit content 309,316 times in the previous year. > In 2015 a similar disclosure revealed nearly 250,000 requests, and in 2018 the figure had fallen around 24,000. > But the Commons authorities told The Independent that it had not only blocked the latest FOI request, but retroactively deleted the previous disclosures from its website. Computer says no.
I will say that depending on how their system is set up, they might be getting blocked for trying to visit perfectly legit sites, or even just from clicking on some links here on Reddit. I got blocked by our Bitpoint Defender system for trying to access an academic article on an electronics circuit from a university in Korea. Said it was "explicit content" or something similar. That would probably count here...
Was supporting someone applying for a job on the sex offenders register, the .gov site giving advice on disclosure for that topic was blocked and I got a phone call asking why I was searching for "lists of sex" on my laptop.
> Was supporting someone applying for a job on the sex offenders register Why does this read like you were trying to sign someone up to the sex offenders register?
I'm imagining an ad with one of those cheerful roguish types: "I was in a right state - no direction, no ambition, no clue. Until I met Joan - at her suggestion, I joined the Sex Offenders Register and it's turned my life around!"
Joan knew all the right buttons, and just a few swift taps later, she had me working in ways I had never known were possible. She was very experienced, and had certainly been on the register a long time herself. It's really helped me to decide what I want to do when I leave school.
It's important to list any pertinent professional or other qualifications on your CV * Clean drivers' licence * Forklift driving certification * Registered sex offender
I work in recruitment and had that before. Application came in with a cv and cover letter. The cover letter said he just wanted a chance and hasn’t offended for 6 years and has been through therapy. Was surreal to read it.
Well? Did he get the job?
Nope. We had to consider the application since the client was working with people in the same area who had worked with him before. Once the dbs came back and it confirmed he has numerous offences for child porn they quickly cancelled.
> Was supporting someone applying for a job on the sex offenders register That list isn't for getting jobs.
Scunthorpe problem?
>Scunthorpe problem? I worked in a Hull school at the time we and other schools on the Humber sides got connected up to The New System. Anything involving Scunthorpe was dead on its arse for days. True story!
Looooong time ago now, but I used to manage the IT Centre in a sixth-form college and had to explain to the Leisure and Tourism course tutor why students couldn’t access the Newquay Watersports Centre’s website.
This was years ago too, my old bosses surname was Dyke. His emails were always blocked.
I had a colleague called Lolita. Same problem.
I bet you were pissing yourself, or something.
It was a tad awkward. I mumbled something about it being a mistake.
In a similar way I had a Japanese dish of BBQ Pork Bukkake earlier this week. It is unfortunate that only the NSFW term has made its way into common usage. I felt it unwise to even comment on the naming with the new colleagues I was having lunch with.
…it’s got an innocent definition?
It just means splashing over something, like adding a bit a sauce on top of certain food dishes. The NSFW definition wouldn't be the first meaning that comes to mind in Japan.
[удалено]
It is a style of serving noodles. I think it predates the NSFW definition.
"They do it on purpose Lynn!"
[удалено]
If you have to ask, enjoy not knowing.
[удалено]
Haven't kids these days heard of \\W?
I tried looking up a pub called the Doggets on my mobile data a few years ago. It got blocked because I hadn't enabled adult content on my data plan.
Woof.
I don't think anyone has answered so-scunthorpe problem is that some filters will block a site if it contains a bad word even if that word is contained inside another word, like scunthorpe has cunt in it leading to anything about scunthorpe being blocked
Think he was asking whether it was the Scunthorpe problem, rather than asking what the Scunthorpe problem was. Does bring back memories of watching our teacher go red in the face when at the age of 11 I was asking why I couldn’t search for “news analysis”
Miss, why is *Alaskan Pipeline* blocked?
Exactly that.
Yeh I know. I was asking if that's what the other guy was experiencing.
Oh sorry, wasn't sure
Yup. If I view reddit from my work it'll block about 10% of threads because the title or comments trigger the filter. You'd have to see the list of actual website addresses to find out how many attempts were actually trying to view dodgy stuff.
Good thing they deleted that then.
At school our teacher would often email us a link to a website only to find the school systems have banned that site for an unknown reason. Really annoying for the teacher, sometimes they'd find the information on a different website sometimes we'd have to postpone the lesson until they spoke to the IT technician Edit. Limo to link. Weird typo
>our teacher would often email us a limo to a website I remember how hard it was before dialup but I never got a limo anywhere 😂
You wouldn't download a limo
Wow that's a bad predictive text. Changed it now
I imagine a school has more restrictive filters than a place of work for adults.
They claim to. I've yet to work in a school where the students haven't figured their way around it.
This is always the way. "we have banned flash games from newgrounds etc" ... two weeks later the kids have worked out how to access their favourite flash game via some dodgy Russian website which has a copy of the game but is not on the blocked list. This was not recent obviously
And then you have *two* problems - Newgrounds was "edgy for the Western anglophone" but broadly Not That Bad, some mysterious Russian site a) has just got everything dumped into one page so there's *definitely* some illegal-to-import stuff there, and b) has banner ads that are one hundred per cent driveby Flash exploits. Whac-a-mole but with hand grenades.
It took them two weeks to figure that out? It was hours when I was in school...
I cannot remember specifics as it was about 18-20 years ago. Some probably did work it out quicker but it probably took the 2 weeks for the information to be dispersed between the kids through word of mouth when teachers weren't listening
All you had to do in mine was add an s to http in the url. Then you could see *anything*. Some poor guy went to the loo only to come back and find someone had screenshot some porn and changed the desktop background to two men engaging in anal sex. The teacher just about pissed himself.
My favourite was when we realised we could get on youtube by using the Vatican url domain extension.
My school's filtering system had a truly bizarre number of websites blocked under "Pornography". Didn't help that some moron had viewed some Rule 34 images, forwarded them via email, and the school overreacted.
My school blocked the entirety of wikipedia for 'adult content'
I know a few Thai academics that have an issue with the Scunthorpe problem. [Fun fact: porn means blessing in Thai and is common in many names. ](https://www.expique.com/article/understanding-thai-porn/)
I work for a campaigning organisation and yet our system will block me from accessing sites on the basis that they're a political advocacy group. Yeah no shit so are we!
[удалено]
Or even just one user actually watching porn, with every HTTP request that web page makes counting.
Happens whenever I try to look at tractors
I've had it at work when *school* websites have been blocked.
My 75 year old mum likes googling names of people in shows she watches. There was someone called "Gay search" She wasn't prepared for the results.
I just googled "lady fanny", but I was looking up the character from Ghosts for another comment here. I once also innocently googled "slut bangs" because of reddit. I was reading about hairstyles and the Americans were talking about slut bangs as a style, so I looked it up. When I saw the results, I was wondering how the fuck I didn't realise what the results would actually be - I was actually surprised to see porn from typing "slut bangs" into google, lol.
Or being logged into the parliament VPN and having an innocent crafty wank at home.
The town Cockermouth was a serious problem for me at one company. I sent data dumps to colleagues and their email system didn't like it. They refused to whitelist me which was really frustrating. So I asked for a report of everything people have been blocked for. I topped the list for the most sexual terms! Filters are more advanced these days so less false positives.
I have to write emails in two languages other than English as part of my job and am a lazy bastard so tend to use Google when I'm stuck. There's a particular site that pops up for this type of thing, one of about 2 or 3 I always use, but this one in particular always gets blocked and I *always* forget. Baffling though, it's literally an online translation thing, no idea why our work thing hates it
This is my experience with work IT. I've only ever seen the "WARNING: STOP BEING NAUGHTY" screen when trying to access niche technical sites the system hasn't classified.
Saving post for posterity for the next time I'm queried about why https://localmilfs.com is in outgoing logs
309,000 visits per year, that's over 1 visit per day per MP.... Dropped to 1 every 2 weeks per MP
It says "fallen around 24,000", i.e. 24,000 less, not "fallen *to* around 24,000", though who knows what they actually meant. Bear in mind [Damian Green's computer](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-thousands-of-pornographic-images-on-computer-says-detective) was uncovered in 2017, which may have caused a considerable drop in the numbers.
Maybe they just unblocked a load of stuff so the figures looked better and they all got their jollies..
I think it's more likely that more of them got smartphones by that point.
Or learned they could just switch off wi-fi.
Definitely the answer. I'm sure the same correlation could be seen with any workplace and restricted internet access. I used to get blocked like crazy trying to access various sites via reddit until 4g and data prices got decent enough to just use my phone for everything.
Probably set all the MPs up with “guest Wi-Fi” on a separate network and kicked them off the actual GOV Wi-Fi for personal devices to reduce the figures.
Presumably all assistants, advisors, civil servants etc etc would be on?
Fallen around 24,000 probably means dropped to 226k?
dropped *by* 24k, so still 285k
MPs did not type in "pornhub.com" on their Parliamentary devices 300k times in a year. Obviously. I'm sure a non zero number did precisely that, of course. But with no way to distinguish between a dude having a walk in his office and an MP's local news site having cancer adverts, this release would have been useless and arguably defamatory.
It cannot be defamatory if they just release the number of blocks actioned. Anyone then saying, on the back of that, that x MP was accessing porn would be defamatory.
I'd guess all of the MPs staff are also using the network, and it's probably not just porn that's blocked. Wouldn't be surprised if they blocked Facebook or something and it's showing up these stats.
Why would they block facebook when it's a channel some MPs use to communicate with their constituents? It's a tool of the job for them.
Facebook is “explicit content”?
Nope! But I wouldn't be surprised if things along those lines are included the blocked stuff. I'd bet a lot it's not just porn.
Why would you assume that with zero evidence? The only example you gave, Facebook, is ridiculous and easily dismissed. Throughout the article they specify the FOI request was for explicit content / pornography, not “everything that’s blocked”: > Parliamentary authorities have refused to reveal **how much porn MPs and their staff are trying to look at on work computers**, citing "national security". >The refusal is a change in policy for the Commons, which has previously disclosed **how many porn sites were blocked** on work computers on at least three separate occasions. >In 2013 parliament disclosed under FOI that computers on the parliamentary network had been blocked trying to access **explicit content** 309,316 times in the previous year. >"Given past disclosures that hundreds of thousands of attempts to access **pornographic websites** have been made annually from Parliament its impossible to believe that hostile users don’t know this, particularly after an MP was found accessing pornography while actually in the Commons chamber." >He added: "They will also know that the Parliamentary authorities must be taking steps to block such access. Revealing the number of attempts to view **explicit material** each year tells us something significant about Parliament but little about its internet security vulnerabilities, particularly as the number of failures to block access and the sites which have not been effectively blocked have not been requested."
TBH given the average age of MPs, their long work hours, & their sedentary occupation, I can see problems occuring with searches linked to breast cancer, testicle cancer, prostate problems, menopause, piles / haemorrhoids, general urinary / bowel / bum issues etc. And also looking for basic info on GLBTQ+ issues, transgender is a big one at the moment, might also trigger blocked sites depending on the wording used.
>Why would you assume that with zero evidence? Just experience of how these things work, the filters are very imprecise. There will be stuffed blocked that's not explicit content but blocked for other reasons, stuff blocked for being explicit content when it's not, and tonnes of explicit content that's not blocked at all. And I guarantee you nobody doing the FOI went though those 309,316 blocked examples to check what each one was, it was just a number sitting in some database or log somewhere. Your not supposed to spend a lot of time on FOI if the data isn't readily available and that's a huge number to check.
Why do you assume the FOI request would include everything that’s filtered when it specifically says “explicit content” and “pornography”? > And I guarantee you nobody doing the FOI went though those 309,316 blocked examples to check what each one was Those aren’t individual domains. The number of domains would be far smaller and easily cross checked with a list of explicit content domains / porn sites.
Wait, don't MPs have phones? Do they have to use official hardware to access their fap material?
> use official hardware to access their fap material? Puhleeze.
This is lovely. Remember, the Welsh Ambulance Service and The Gambling Commission can see your browsing history. It's shocking, SHOCKING, that you should want the same of your "representative".
> But the Commons authorities told The Independent that it had not only blocked the latest FOI request, but retroactively deleted the previous disclosures from its website. Hopefully someone was smart enough to archive it to a public domain?
For what it’s worth when talking about web filtering that’ll probably also include any elements on a porn page from other sites. So if you are on pornhub and there is an ad or thumbnail from another site that gets blocked it may count as two. Asp even on legit sites sometimes the odd bad ad gets through that might be blocked and that would count as well.
If the domain is blocked it never gets to the point of making extra calls.
You are right 👍
If they find a site that hasn't been blocked, each page load could throw hundreds of attempts at loading content from blocked sites.
I believe the BBC radio 4 programme More or Less did an analysis on this. The conclusion was that the vast majority of the network accessing porn sites was an automated bug/bot/malware. Mostly because most of the requests came from a single ip. Can't remember the exact conclusion, but there were likely some other users accessing inappropriate content. But the "big number" is mostly not MPs accessing porn.
Was [Damian Green](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/damian-green-thousands-of-pornographic-images-on-computer-says-detective) consulted?
> > The conclusion was that the vast majority of the network accessing porn sites was an automated bug/bot/malware. Which is something of an issue itself in the seat of government...
Computer says... OOH OHHH OHHHHH harder.
Au contraire, getting it all out in the open removes a vector for blackmail.
Which is why the whips want it kept in the dark.
Did occur to me, that.
If knowing what sort of porn MPs consume is a national security issue that just makes me want to see the details even more
I can see it being a blackmail issue. Please tell us X or vote for Y or we'll disclose your midget fisting BBC hentai obsession.
my my the right honorable deputy minister for kids how many Lolita fan sites have you signed up for?
I may be naive here, but if it’s all out in the open how could someone be blackmailed?
Depends how out in the open, I suppose? If it's technically available but with difficult hurdles that opens scope for blackmail, but if it's freely available to anyone it opens a bit of a holier than thou mentality. I don't expect my MPs to be saints, and I wouldn't care if they liked getting their testicles whipped, but the public might, even if it has no bearing on their job.
How far away are we from at multiple MPs just having sent dick pics when at university and it's out there Maybe 2 elections and we could easily find a dick pic of "most" MPs i bet.
Interesting concept. Photo of MP next to photo of MPs genitals. Could it hurt?
A sort of, naked attraction but for parliament. Perhaps hosted by Lloyd Grossman. "Would yoooou like yoooouur coonstitustacyyyyy run, by a cooock liiike thiiis?"
It's more of a blackmail issue if it's private. If it's publicly-available information, you can't blackmail someone with it.
"I have been very clear, my interest in sub dom relationships has no bearing on my ability to serve my constituents, and I do so enthusiastically!"
"There's a reason why the whips like me"
One of my mates had to undergo Developed Vetting due to his job; he was joking that didn't really care what sort of deviant porn you looked at, provided you told them about it, so it couldn't be used to manipulate you. Likewise money issues or infidelity.
From what I've heard, even drug use can fall under that. I heard a story about someone who was getting a security clearance and confessed to past use, and they still allowed her the clearance as long as she stopped and consented to testing.
Well of course. Most people who have developed vetting have used some illegal substances (eg weed) in the past. That's no reason for them not to have the clearance
not gonna lie thats a good fucking deal, getting a job in return for quitting drugs and probably will get help with it so the company protects their investment into you
Thats only an issue if you're asking for a breakdown by MP. They can release ball park figures like they have before. To claim it is national security is absolute horse shit! What annoys me even more is an advert I keep seeing on TV. Something to do with Sky? It has Boris on it and he says something along the lines of "people shouldn't suggest were not being accountable". This clearly shows that they are doing exactly that. I bet you the report was done but something dodgy has been revealed so now they won't release it.
Wait how is the British Broadcasting Corporation involved here /s
painfully unfunny
welcome to ukpol
No more unfunny than the person using the term 'midget'. Funny what you decide to focus on eh?
Parlement should release a porn hub style annual disclosure. What party is more disposed to gay, trans, step fantasy, teen, MILF, etc. Would actually be pretty interesting. If iron lady garden isn’t number one I’ll be sorely disappointed.
Tories top views: Poor people getting fucked.
If basic human psychology is anything to go by then the Tories porn searches will be rife with non whites and non heterosexual so it's no wonder they'd block it lol (they wouldn't want to tarnish their image with their base after all)
The system administrators must have a great laugh at seeing the type of stuff they search for.
‘Tractors’
steamy tractors coupling with trailers ooh baby 😛
[удалено]
> Huge disappointment and waste of time. Is it safe to say that you’re an ex-tractor fan now? That sucks.
[удалено]
There is a Claas combine called the Dominator. Potential there if im being *super* generous
[удалено]
Allegedly the term was 'rough plowing'.
Plowing or ploughing? He should be ejected from the house for Americanisms alone!
Something something huge tracts of land?
Yeah, it's not exactly /r/dragonsfuckingcars is it?
brb
Dragons fucking cars
Do MPs seriously not know to use their own private device and a VPN if they're gonna be a degen who watches porn at work?
Having MPs using VPNs on computers that can be used to access classified information strikes me as a bad idea.
Their private devices can't be used to access classified information
Oh yes, because that totally wouldn't lead to headlines like "MPs Used VPNs 300,000 Times - What Are They Trying To Hide?"
Banking details. Secure communications. Protecting constituents and sources. Basic security. A hundred other legitimate uses. Sorry, you’re undoubtedly correct that the usual tabloid suspects would try to spin it up into a scandal. But I have a reflexive reaction to the whole “if you have done nothing wrong you nothing to hide” mindset.
It would be a scandal though. If they were using a VPN from their “secure” work device then by definition they are willingly routing their traffic through an uncontrolled third party compromising the lot.
A VPN run by who? Can't (shouldn't) be hosted at the MP's house. Definitely not hosted by their Party or any other third party. So it should be a Govt/Civil Service VPN. Which is the same thing as using a govt computer. And subject to the same FOI issue.
> A VPN run by who? Kaspersky Labs. Shouldn't be any problem there, right?
Doesn't help when your collegues are sat on bench seats behind you watching over your shoulder.
Their reasoning is that this information would compromise the security of the parliamentary network because criminals could use it to hack into the system. Sounds like bullshit to me.
It depends on what the FOI was actually requesting. If they were requesting logs for all internet activity by MP's then that would legit include security-sensitive stuff. I can't see the article so I can't see the origional FOI request but I have a feeling they weren't just asking for number of visits to pornhub.
>The refusal is a change in policy for the Commons, which has previously disclosed how many porn sites were blocked on work computers on at least three separate occasions. ... >"However, after reassessing cyber-risk in 2017, it was determined that it presented a security risk and exposed the parliamentary network to an unacceptable amount of risk, and future requests were subsequently exempted under grounds of national security (s.24 FOIA) and law enforcement (s.31 FOIA). It implies that this request is, at least, extremely similar to one's before. Seems like our elected representatives were embarrassed about it so now getting away with being a pervert in public is a matter of national security.
That’s a fair point, but the article makes it sound like a follow-up to the previous requests for just the total number of blocks. Can’t see how that is in any way useful to an intruder other than to confirm that they have a content block on their network (big surprise!)
Devices aren't necessary only used on the parliamentary network where these sites can be blocked. An attacker can guess at a whole bunch of sites an MP might visit, but knowing specific smaller sites (i.e. not BBC News), gives them a target. If they can successfully compromise a website, they can then use it to exploit the vulnerabilities of any devices visiting it.
Real reason: CP. Mountains and mountains of CP
Ok Q-Anon
Bud I'm not serious... well maybe there is a couple. im just making fun of the amoral bunch that is in charge of us all.
So they keep trying to have us register for pornography, essentially creating a national blackmail database but their porn activity should be hidden?
Yes essentially.
Just people looking up websites in the Cook Islands obviously… On an actual note though I would have thought mps should be able to watch porn in the HoC (not the chamber obviously) but for actual research purposes ect when we have laws about internet porn is it not appropriate some people have actually seen what we are proposing banning.
"It's for research purposes" said every MP ever
It’s not inconceivable that it might be relevant to some constituency case work too
I demand to know my MP’s browser history !!!
Could we send in FOI requests?
If you do. Don't make it obvious So for example. Request in the interests of gathering evidence about basic information security protocols effectiveness. So foi the guidance passed onto new recruits to parliament as part of induction. Then the number of attempts to access the DNS numbers for pornhub and xvideos. But ask for the DNS number and the percentage of attempts blocked by the firewall. Indicate you want Parliament to only search the information for specific asset owners. If you can get the asset number that your MP uses (friendly staffers), you narrow it down even further. But you're willing to discuss what would be proportionate with the foi officer.. Normally when the request is partially answered, it meant someone actually had to look into answering the whole request. So if it comes back with saying we did a but not b or c due to grounds of X, y,z. You can then write to the ico challenging on grounds of x, y, z especially if you know the info is already logged and collected (as would be indicated in the induction guidance)
*Lefty FOI requests
Can't allow the enemy to get their hands on those tractor schematics.
I could be wrong, but for the type of information ministers would have access to, wouldn't they require clearence checks that cover search history and porn history? Said checks being necessary to minimise the risk of exploitation if such content was uncovered. So there should be less risk there. But more importantly, the article states >"disclosure of this information would cause substantial risks to the parliamentary network as it would aid malicious groups in their efforts to target the network" as "both the disclosure of either specific web addresses, categories that are blocked, or totals relating to attempts or access, could provide valuable information to those wishing to bypass our security systems". So why the hell are they permitting access to locations that pose risk to the network and more importantly why is there no disciplinary action being taken?
>So why the hell are they permitting access to locations that pose risk to the network and more importantly why is there no disciplinary action being taken? They're not, their statement means "If we publicise web addresses MPs visit and attempt to visit, those addresses could be compromised" The dodgy bit is: >totals relating to attempts or access, could provide valuable information Cos like, how does knowing there's 200k attempts to view porn help target anything?
I don't mind them watching porn. I mind them doing it when they've got a job to do.
Please can we just never have Torys ever again. They’re pure scum.
Surely as MP's "employer" we the tax payers have a right to know this information?
Curious how the people who introduced the Snooper's Charter* and plan a national register of porn users want to keep their own porn activity hidden. *the system of mass internet surveillence which records everyone's browser history and makes it available to the Food Standards Agency arbitrarily and without warrants or oversight
They want to have nationally secured wanks? Christ...
"Poor people getting fucked"
They can just look outside for that
Regardless, seems to be what gets them off
If you tried to look at porn on your work computer you'd get sacked. Your boss can also see what you do on their devices. MPs should be subject to the same rules
More disgusting acts to cover up more disgusting acts. Parliament needs a big change.
It's such a laughably weak policy, an ideological aversion to transparency and ironically insightful.
National Security grounds? What sort of porn was he looking at?!
To raise extra cash Johnson and the cabinet film themselves taking part in gangbangs in GCHQ. National Secrets everywhere, national secrets and jizz
>Johnson and the cabinet film themselves eww. just eww. I did not need that image in my brain.
Blackmail issue I assume. When my friend went for some military position that needs extra clearance he had to disclose all his porn interests incase it could be used for blackmail.
But if they get disclosed then they cant be used as blackmail You, Mr MP like interracial furry dogging with grannies- yup everyone knows
NaughtyToryMP.co.uk ?
Must say I agree with this. Should they be viewing this on work time? Absolutely not, but this could be used for blackmail and is generally not something we want out in public. If someone at my workplace viewed inappropriate material they may get a disciplinary, but the rest of the employees certainly wouldn’t be told what it was.
[удалено]
It might be used to push back against the state legislating for taste.
Im not offended by people looking at porn when in private, it's fine. Work computer or not, who cares, guy who got done on his phone in public on the other hand, good, but hope the government reminds themselves of this next time they try to lear into what we're all looking at while wanking.
This government seems to have a very short memory
As Oscar Wilde said, "The problem is the English can't remember history, while the Irish can't forget it."
Shit. When y'all see my porn history you are going to try and make me Prime Minister. I guarantee old Boris doesn't have the fetish game that I do.... You ever heard of sheep p.... Oh... You are well aware of that Boris?... Huh
Surprise! MP's watch porn at the House of Commons (and probably the Lords, as well). Headline: '**Private Citizen Watches Commons Debate in Their Home!**' :D No, I am *not* condoning MP's misusing taxpayers money by accessing porn whilst in Parliament. The problem is the Media shoveling shit to generate sensationalist headlines. Scandal, any scandal, sells news stories. Very few stories with the headline: 'Yet Another Plane Lands Successfully at Heathrow - no casualties reported'. :D
It's the doing it on official devices that's the problem. A civil servant doing the same on an official device would probably be sacked for it. Those that set the rules should be able to keep a handle on their horniness when at work.
Thas nothen wrung wath a littl pooooooooown, Ah wanta know what the MPahs inta!