Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday January 12, @06:14PM   Printer-friendly
from the parliamentarians-are-people-too dept.

Submitted via IRC for TheMightyBuzzard

Porn streaming sites were accessed from UK parliament 24,000 times in six months, figures have shown.

I'm torn between making a "bunch of wankers" joke and castigating them for being underachievers.

Source: https://www.rt.com/uk/415259-porn-stream-sex-parliament/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @06:29PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @06:29PM (#621478)

    I'm torn between making a "bunch of wankers" joke and castigating them for being underachievers.

    Shirley this is evidence they are both!

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by jelizondo on Friday January 12, @06:36PM

      by jelizondo (653) on Friday January 12, @06:36PM (#621483)

      Stop calling me Shirley

      :-)

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 12, @07:13PM (4 children)

      by DannyB (5839) on Friday January 12, @07:13PM (#621495)

      Surely they are overachievers, Shirley, if they can access pr0n 24,000 times in six months. That's 133.33 accesses per day (for 180 daze), 7 days a week. Now spread 133 accesses per day into a portion of the hours of the day when they would be wanking, how many wanks per day, and for how many members of parliament. And make assumptions about the number of minutes each access lasts (and megabytes streamed).

      From Snowden, we know that NSA was spying on Parliament, because, uh . . . NSA knew there would be a high probability of catching terrorists there. Or blackmale victims that NSA could leverage later.

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday January 12, @07:32PM (2 children)

        by edIII (791) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12, @07:32PM (#621502)

        133 accesses?

        What constitutes an access though? If that's loading up a video, a single wank session might involve many videos before you find *that* video that makes you blink. All the javascript in the page is surely accessing it many more times per page load. If that is 133 wanking sessions per day... those people need to be studied, then treated for what is surely some serious callouses on their hands, and epic chaffing of the willy.

        On another note, I'm reminded of that movie There's Something About Mary. Maybe we don't want politicians discussing things like war, surveillance, etc. all stressed out. They may start their day out as wankers, but it may be safer for the rest of us :)

        • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 12, @07:46PM

          by DannyB (5839) on Friday January 12, @07:46PM (#621509)

          Powerful people probably have (Parliament) interns [pip-psp.org] or (US congress) page boys [wikipedia.org]1 [wikipedia.org]2 [wikipedia.org] who get the callouses on their hands.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 12, @11:47PM

          by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday January 12, @11:47PM (#621614) Journal

          > Maybe we don't want politicians discussing things like war, surveillance, etc. all stressed out.

          Or hard up? Let them look all they want! Keep them happy and as far away as possible from Dr. Strangelove's plan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8L8NopVwdg&t=3m56s [youtube.com]

      • (Score: 2) by fritsd on Friday January 12, @10:16PM

        by fritsd (4586) on Friday January 12, @10:16PM (#621581) Journal

        I doubt your 180 dizzy days.
        I googled "how many days is the uk parliament in session" and got
        http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04653 [parliament.uk]
        which showed approx. 150 days / year.
        So 75 sessions in half a year, 320 accesses per day
        Unless they surf for pr0n on the other 25*5-75 = 55 days. Then it's 436 accesses per day.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday January 12, @06:30PM (2 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12, @06:30PM (#621481)

    Although there are probably numerous examples of MPs accessing what most people would describe as pornography, the figures are a little bit skewed.

    I recently listened to a radio broadcast which explained that some of the reported incidents include accessing newspapers that are on general sale in the UK but which happen to contain photographs that nobody other than a very prudish person would describe as 'pornography', and other similar images. The broadcast did not, as far as I can recall, offer any indication of how many reports could be misidentified in this way, and it did accept that there was still a very high proportion of downloads of genuinely pornographic material.

    Of course, the UK - like many other countries - finds it difficult to define concisely what exactly constitutes pornographic material so the number of attempted accesses depends very much on the person interpreting the data, which means that such an assessment could be made to support their own particular argument. If such sites are easily recognised, why aren't they blocked by a firewall? Of course, I am making an assumption that Parliament does have its own network and gateway but it certainly seems to have one [parliament.uk].

    --
    It's always my fault...
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @06:38PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @06:38PM (#621485)

      This is the same country wherein MI5 covered up endemic Parliamentary sexual misconduct with orphaned minors in order to retain political leverage for itself. 30 years later, only after all the members of parliament had died so no one could be tried or held responsible, did they acknowledge what had happened.

      Google it. There was a police officer and a social worker who were either reassigned or lost their jobs over it and are the only reason it kept being brought up and finally acknowledged, despite what was probably much longer than 30 years worth of misconduct (1980s to the 2010s, confirmed.)

      Really makes you wonder why so many countries are further centralizing their authority, when we already know some of the biggest paedophiles are in Parliament or your regional equivalent politically powerful body.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday January 12, @06:54PM

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12, @06:54PM (#621490) Journal

      We also don't know for sure if this is 1) the truth, 2) specific to the actual parliament's network vs some public wifi, sharing the same gateway, 3) actual porn vs tabloids (as you mention) 4) whether or not the destination IPs were simply a web farm hosting site or in any way specific to a port vendor, 5) the access was merely an advertisement embedded in a web page.

      160 requests per-day from computers that were connected to the parliamentary network.

      That bit quoted from the story suggests it was merely embedded ads, because no actual user would make 160 attempts that were presumably unsuccessful.

      Welcome to the wonderful world of pre-fetched web pages.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @06:46PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @06:46PM (#621486)

    How many of those alleged attempts were simply banner ads for porn sites which were not clicked through and thus not accessed?

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday January 12, @07:18PM

      by DannyB (5839) on Friday January 12, @07:18PM (#621498)

      Politicians not clicking pr0n banner ads is prima facie1 improbable.

      1prime-uh face-shuh

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by jelizondo on Friday January 12, @06:48PM (3 children)

    by jelizondo (653) on Friday January 12, @06:48PM (#621487)

    According to the TFA

    “There are 8,500 computers on the parliamentary network, which are used by MPs, peers, their staff and staff of both Houses [...]"

    There are 153 natural days from June 1st to October 31st, with 24,473 attempts made, so that gives us, let's see, 159.95 attempts per day; now divide that by 8,500 computers and you get 0.018 attempts per computer.

    Clearly underachievers. So do castigate them. Whip them into shape!

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Friday January 12, @06:58PM (2 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12, @06:58PM (#621491) Journal

      Ads in web pages. Client side fetches. Tabloid surfing. Nothing to see here.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 12, @07:08PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 12, @07:08PM (#621492)

        You forgot the "doing research for the upcoming filtering scheme" excuse.

        Why is it so hard to just accept that some people will surf for porn at work? I don't (If I did, I'd use my phone and not get logged). But I have no doubt that many people do.
        160 daily requests out of more than 8000 computers? 2%... Yup, it's average Joes taking a break on her majesty's dime.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @07:59PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @07:59PM (#621523)

          ok but if its my tax dollars being used to fund the behavior, then i want you to hire someone else that understands he can look at porn when he isn't at work.

  • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday January 12, @06:53PM (1 child)

    by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday January 12, @06:53PM (#621488)

    I'm sure it was purely for research purposes and they didn't actually enjoy looking at the sites.

    --
    "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
    • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 12, @07:20PM

      by DannyB (5839) on Friday January 12, @07:20PM (#621499)

      This is not the pr0n you are looking for. You don't need to see his identification. Move along.

  • (Score: 4, Touché) by AssCork on Friday January 12, @07:11PM (1 child)

    by AssCork (6255) on Friday January 12, @07:11PM (#621494) Journal

    "Mr Plow" submitted an article about....plowing.
    That's it, I'm done, I'm calling it a day.

    • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @08:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @08:05PM (#621528)

      That's it, I'm done, I'm calling it a day.

      Great call AssCork

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @08:07PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @08:07PM (#621531)

    At least they can't reproduce that way

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @09:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12, @09:41PM (#621573)

      You don't know the true horror of the Parliamentary Porn Program.

  • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday January 12, @10:50PM

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday January 12, @10:50PM (#621590)

    Russia or North Korea?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by jimbrooking on Friday January 12, @10:53PM (1 child)

    by jimbrooking (3465) on Friday January 12, @10:53PM (#621592)

    Seriously? rt.com (formerly Russia Today) is about as credible a "news" source as Faux (sic) News. As many other responders have noted, the headline is click-bait, the inferences questionable, and the actual likely percentage negligible. Good for some adolescent giggles, but hardly worth the time to decide it's crap before moving on.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13, @12:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13, @12:08AM (#621620)

    Or was it ads & spam email trying to access content?

  • (Score: 2) by chewbacon on Saturday January 13, @12:09AM

    by chewbacon (1032) on Saturday January 13, @12:09AM (#621621)

    Maybe 24,000 per person? If it is a bunch of wankers, I mean let’s be accurate.

  • (Score: 2) by deimios on Saturday January 13, @05:56AM

    by deimios (201) on Saturday January 13, @05:56AM (#621708) Journal

    In related news I'd like to see the stats on attempts at sleeping, eating and using the toilet, you know the other biological needs. Now the other debate over what biological species the members of parliament are part of, I will not get into, but I suppose it's close to reptilian so the first point stands.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13, @02:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 13, @02:25PM (#621798)

    This from the same country that refused to help hundreds of teenage girls being raped by muslims in rotherham for over a decade and still continues today. So not shocked.

(1)