Well, it would seem then, employers are easily satisfied with pro-forma compliance. I've yet to see one of these filters that can prevent someone from getting to pornography if they really want to.
OTOH, I have seen them block innocuous sites simply because the site included the wrong word. And I have seen them block work related sites, resulting in the Network Administrator having to do extra work to bypass the filter for those necessary, work-related sites. > From: > "P. J. Alling" > > No it satisfies, employers who don't want their employees looking at > porn when they're supposed to be working. That's what those filters > are meant for, (plus a scary message that your attempt to access a > forbidden site has been logged). Personally I see no problem using it > this way, you get paid at work to do things you wouldn't do otherwise, > that's why it's called work. > > John Sessoms wrote: >> From: >> J >> >> Listen to this..Where my wife works, she was going to the page were >> my photos are on photo.net www.photo.net/photos/pjjdxn and she >> received a ERROR which said: The following error was encountered, >> Access denied by Smartfilter: Forbidden, this page >> www.photo.net/photos/pjjdxn is categorized as: Nudity >> >> AS you have seen before on the page there is no nudity at all on the >> page, but yes their are nude photos are other people's pages, so I >> guess they just decide to block it all............Joe > FWIW, the American Cancer Society is categorized the same way by > "smartfilter", because they have "breasts". > > Not very smart at all, but it satisfies the religio-fascists who want > to keep you barefoot and pregnant. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
