You will if you don’t brush regularly.
It seems a little silly for a messageboard to limit discussion about breaking employers’ rules, when the site’s mere existence causes an avalanche of violations all day every day. How many of us here are reading/posting from work? Even if your company doesn’t explicitly forbid posting on messageboards, I’m willing to bet a vast majority of employers represented here at least have some general “computers are for business use only” statement in their employment agreements.
I’ll have you know that my pearly-whites are in perfect chomping condition! See? ------> 
Good point. And I’d still like someone to point me to the rule that says these types of dicussions are not allowed. If it isn’t explicitly prohibited then I think it was unfair to close my thread.
Could that be connected to the idea that everything we post here is © The Chicago Reader, Inc.?
Simply repost the OP, state that you own the company, had the block or whatever installed by someone who moved away, and now you want to know how to unblock something in the company system that you own, and that would be ok I think.
I have a web blocker installed on my computer yet my kids are getting round this and visiting blocked sites. How are they doing this?
Yeah, please tell us, I’d LOVE to know!
It’s my understanding that the policy against helping people circumvent a company’s rules is one of principle, not liability. For example, we don’t want people sharing accounts on this site, so we’ve generally discouraged discussions on how to share registration/login info for other websites. The Reader has a strong interest in copyright protections, so we discourage discussions of things like P2P file sharing programs, which are legal but in practice are primarily used to distribute copyrighted material.
There is of course no overall board rule against discussions which could potentially help someone somewhere violate some company’s policies, as that would be completely unworkable. Instead, this is one of those situations where the mods occasionally have to decide, on a case by case basis, if a given thread is over the line.
Still, Liberal, your post implied that any time spent on a message board is wrong, whereas people on lunch breaks or work breaks may be online without interfering with productivity at all. Also, many jobs are, well, boring, at times, and it’s quite useful and good to have a distraction.
That certainly makes sense. It’s been a while since I actually sat at a desk in that manner. Maybe I should take a day or two to get in touch with today’s desk-centric world. Back when I was a department head, the most advanced thing we had was fax machines. The “computers” were greenly lit monitors, rat-a-tatting text supplied over a 1200 baud modem through multiplexers. For our break fun, we did things like talk, or go down to the warehouse and shoot hoops. I’m old. Cut me some slack.
But why do you have that principle? I don’t see anything unethical about such discussions.
The issue I have is the apparent arbitrainess of this “rule”. As far as I can see, there was never any announced policy against this type of post.
Suppose somebody starts a thread on “What’s your favorite type of beer?”. What stops a moderator from closing it with the announcement that “Threads discussing the consumption of alcohol are against board policy.” The rest of us would be wondering “Where did that come from?” but would have no other venue of appeal.
I think this is just a part of a greater issue. The moderators of this board have a great deal of power and are unanswerable to the subscribers. In a situation like this, we would at least like to be made aware of what the rules are.
The Pit is the venue for appeal of moderator decisions. Such threads often provoke review of our policies, both within the thread and among ourselves via email. Were a moderator to do something extreme, such as closing all alcohol-related threads, a discussion would immediately ensue and the actions would likely be reversed.
I understand where you’re coming from, but I’m not sure how to improve the situation. Attempting to codify every potential moderator action would cause significantly more problems than it would solve, IMO. If you can’t trust moderators to make judgment calls specific to a given situation, then why even have moderators?
Case in point: say two GQ threads are started. The first is written by a 12 year old asking how to disable the parental controls his parents set up on his computer as a condition of being allowed to use it unsupervised. The second is written by a parent asking how to set up the parental controls on their computer so their 6 year old can surf the web without being accidentally exposed to something gross. Let’s assume we would normally close the first one, but leave the second one open. How do you write a rule which prohibits the first thread but allows the second?
I understand this. But this example is helping with something that is unethical and / or illegal. Helping with the web blocking thing is neither.
In your opinion. Some would argue that helping an employee circumvent his/her employer’s policies on how to use the company’s computer during work hours is unethical. Some would also argue that helping a 12-year old get around parental controls is not.
In any case, the point of my example was not to defend samclem decision to close the thread, but to demonstrate the difficulty of making specific rules for some types of situations which don’t end up being overly broad or applied to situations for which they weren’t intended.
I do not believe the topic being discussed is in violation of that law. The law seems to be tailored to you accessing information when the possessor of the information does not want to give you access. For example, by your reading of the law a child would be in violation when circumventing their parents’ NetNanny protections.
Book Monster I haven’t been warned by a mod for as long as I can remember and not that I want to get warned I’m going out on a limb and answer your question about Ghostzilla and Websense
Basicly even if you use a different browser you will be blocked. All requests for websites go though the system running Websense and if the site you are going to is on the blocked list you are done. There is no way around that. I’ve been blocked at work from sites by Websense as well. Even the Straight Dope was blocked but that was lifted without me asking.
The only way to get around websense is to send your request through another system which I’m not going to tell you how because
A) If you knew that you wouldnn’t ask how to get past websense
B) A network administrator could see the abnormal traffic and then your job would be in jeopardy.
Sorry for not responding sooner. I was away over the holidays and had limited board access. Just got back tonight.
There was certainly nothing illegal about Book Monster’s original thread. I probably shouldn’t have added the “illegal” part in my closure. I was just trying to give a general idea about the kinds of threads that shouldn’t be started on the Board. My bad.
As to the “against board policy” part–it’s been my memory that these kinds of threads have been closed before. I haven’t searched for one. I may do that when I get caught up tomorrow. It was just MY opinion and decision that this is not the kind of thread/discussion that we need to get into.
It’s a fine line between letting discussions of unethical behavior flourish, or trying to limit them one by one, on an individual moderator-based decision. I chose to limit this one.
As the other mods and posters have pointed out, it would be pointless to make a hard and fast rule trying to define this.
If this were the only board out there where this kind of question could be answered, I might think again. But since this question could be answered on other boards, I thought it wasn’t in the best interest of the Reader that we provide answers to how to defeat an employer’s restrictions.
The thing is that I (and I assume other posters) actually attempt to follow the rules of the board. I never knowingly post anything that I believe is a violation of this board’s policies. So I guess from now on I won’t post anything that discusses violating of the rules of my employer (which I wouldn’t have done anyway). But I don’t like knowing that there are apparently “invisible rules” that are only revealed after they have been broken.
I also don’t like the apparent arbitrariness of this rule. I’ve read the posted policies of the board and I assume they are the consensus of the Chicago Reader, the Straight Dope, Cecil Adams, Ed Zotti, and the collective wisdom of the moderators. Presumedly there were discussions on specific issues of what would and would not be allowed and where the limits would be set. But in this case, it appears that one moderator made a decision and declared that this decision is now board policy. If this is the case, then obviously this power is subject to abuse - to use the example I gave above, nothing appears to prevent a single moderator from deciding he is opposed to any mention of alcohol and declaring that board policy now prohibits it.