Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday January 12 2018, @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This discussion has been archived.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.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday January 12 2018, @06:30PM (2 children)

    by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @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...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @06:38PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 12 2018, @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 2018, @06:54PM

    by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 12 2018, @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.