On a day when President Obama argued for more government regulation over the financial industry, a new government report reveals that some high-level regulators have spent more time looking at porn than policing Wall Street. …
One senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington spent up to eight hours a day accessing Internet porn. When he filled all the space on his government computer with pornographic images, he downloaded more to CDs and DVDs that accumulated in boxes in his offices.
An SEC accountant attempted to access porn websites 1,800 times in a two-week period and had 600 pornographic images on her computer hard drive.
Another SEC accountant attempted to access porn sites 16,000 times in a single month.
Full story: SEC and Pornography: Workers Spent Hours on Porn Sites Instead of Stopping Fraud - ABC News
This is not endemic to the SEC/public sector.
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Way to miss the point. [/quote]
Not really.
Really?
Then tell me, can you name any private companies that:
1)Allow employees to download/watch porn for 8 hours a day (at work),
2)Pay from $100,000 to $222,000 per year, and
3)Are hiring?
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
This is not endemic to the SEC/public sector. [/quote]
Maybe not specifically porn, but I would say corruption/laziness is pretty endemic of all government agencies.
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Really?
Then tell me, can you name any private companies that:
1)Allow employees to download/watch porn for 8 hours a day (at work),
2)Pay from $100,000 to $222,000 per year, and
3)Are hiring?
[/quote]
Google. My old roommate works for them. This is exactly what he does all day.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Really?
Then tell me, can you name any private companies that:
1)Allow employees to download/watch porn for 8 hours a day (at work),
2)Pay from $100,000 to $222,000 per year, and
3)Are hiring?
[/quote]
Google. My old roommate works for them. This is exactly what he does all day.[/quote]
Could be.
According to “Top 10 Reasons to Work at Google”:
#1: Lend a helping hand
#4: Work and play are not mutually exclusive
(source: http://www.google.com/intl/en/jobs/lifeatgoogle/toptenreasons/)
But, their diversity policy make me wonder:
“At Google, we are committed to a supportive work environment, where employees have the opportunity to reach their fullest potential. Each Googler is expected to do his or her utmost to create a respectful workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination of any kind.” ( Building a Sense of Belonging at Google and Beyond )
&
"Google Code of Conduct
II. Respect Each Other
b. Positive Environment
Google prohibits unlawful harassment in any form – verbal, physical or visual. "
( Alphabet Investor Relations - Investor Relations - Alphabet )
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Really?
Then tell me, can you name any private companies that:
1)Allow employees to download/watch porn for 8 hours a day (at work),
2)Pay from $100,000 to $222,000 per year, and
3)Are hiring?
[/quote]
Pretty sure the government workers aren’t ‘allowed’ to watch porn all day either.
Try again.
It wouldn’t surprise me if those logs were in some way doctored. 8 hours of porn a day is a whole lot of porn, considering most people will at least take some time to walk around the office or use the restroom facilities. I can’t imaging a whole bunch of people doing it. Whoever messed with it, also made the mistake of using female targets.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Really?
Then tell me, can you name any private companies that:
1)Allow employees to download/watch porn for 8 hours a day (at work),
2)Pay from $100,000 to $222,000 per year, and
3)Are hiring?
[/quote]
Pretty sure the government workers aren’t ‘allowed’ to watch porn all day either.
Try again.[/quote]
Pretty sure that they did (and do).
Try again (to actually read the story).
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
Really?
Then tell me, can you name any private companies that:
1)Allow employees to download/watch porn for 8 hours a day (at work),
2)Pay from $100,000 to $222,000 per year, and
3)Are hiring?
[/quote]
Pretty sure the government workers aren’t ‘allowed’ to watch porn all day either.
Try again.[/quote]
Pretty sure that they did (and do).
Try again (to actually read the story).
[/quote]
They DID, doesn’t mean they were ALLOWED to.
Stop acting like a retard and pull your head in.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS LOOKING AT PORN
It’s no wonder how Madoff got away with his shit, even after people brought to the attention of the SEC 5 times.
The SEC is not incompetent. Their hands were tied for 8 years for the same reason that the two republican commissioners voted against the suit against Goldman.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
They DID, doesn’t mean they were ALLOWED to.[/quote]
If they aren’t being fired, then they ARE allowed to.
And, from the original story: “The most recent case cited in the report is from just four weeks ago.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stop acting like a retard and pull your head in.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS LOOKING AT PORN[/quote]
Stop acting like a retard and read the story.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB FOR WHICH HE GETS PAID $100-220K. THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS TO HIRE MORE GUYS LIKE HIM
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
They DID, doesn’t mean they were ALLOWED to.[/quote]
If they aren’t being fired, then they ARE allowed to.
And, from the original story: “The most recent case cited in the report is from just four weeks ago.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stop acting like a retard and pull your head in.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS LOOKING AT PORN[/quote]
Stop acting like a retard and read the story.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB FOR WHICH HE GETS PAID $100-220K. THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS TO HIRE MORE GUYS LIKE HIM
[/quote]
You can’t possibly be this dumb.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
They DID, doesn’t mean they were ALLOWED to.[/quote]
If they aren’t being fired, then they ARE allowed to.
And, from the original story: “The most recent case cited in the report is from just four weeks ago.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stop acting like a retard and pull your head in.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS LOOKING AT PORN[/quote]
Stop acting like a retard and read the story.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB FOR WHICH HE GETS PAID $100-220K. THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS TO HIRE MORE GUYS LIKE HIM
[/quote]
You can’t possibly be this dumb.[/quote]
Your witty rejoinders have convinced me of my errors.
Clearly, the financial crisis was prevented because the regulators were doing their jobs.
And now, thanks to Obama’s brilliance, future financial crises will be prevented because we have more regulators.
You may now continue with your Obamagasms.
You can’t possibly be this dumb.
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
They DID, doesn’t mean they were ALLOWED to.[/quote]
If they aren’t being fired, then they ARE allowed to.
And, from the original story: “The most recent case cited in the report is from just four weeks ago.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stop acting like a retard and pull your head in.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS LOOKING AT PORN[/quote]
Stop acting like a retard and read the story.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB FOR WHICH HE GETS PAID $100-220K. THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS TO HIRE MORE GUYS LIKE HIM
[/quote]
You can’t possibly be this dumb.[/quote]
Your witty rejoinders have convinced me of my errors.
Clearly, the financial crisis was prevented because the regulators were doing their jobs.
And now, thanks to Obama’s brilliance, future financial crises will be prevented because we have more regulators.
You may now continue with your Obamagasms.
You can’t possibly be this dumb.
[/quote]
Where did Obama come into this? Like it has already been said, this behavior is not endemic to the public sector. It’s happens in private companies, and people get away with it too. If you can’t see why the public sectors are more likely to get caught, then there is something seriously wrong with you.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]cremaster wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
They DID, doesn’t mean they were ALLOWED to.[/quote]
If they aren’t being fired, then they ARE allowed to.
And, from the original story: “The most recent case cited in the report is from just four weeks ago.”
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Stop acting like a retard and pull your head in.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS LOOKING AT PORN[/quote]
Stop acting like a retard and read the story.
OH SNAP A GUY WAS NOT DOING HIS JOB FOR WHICH HE GETS PAID $100-220K. THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION IS TO HIRE MORE GUYS LIKE HIM
[/quote]
You can’t possibly be this dumb.[/quote]
Your witty rejoinders have convinced me of my errors.
Clearly, the financial crisis was prevented because the regulators were doing their jobs.
And now, thanks to Obama’s brilliance, future financial crises will be prevented because we have more regulators.
You may now continue with your Obamagasms.
You can’t possibly be this dumb.
[/quote]
Where did Obama come into this? Like it has already been said, this behavior is not endemic to the public sector. It’s happens in private companies, and people get away with it too. If you can’t see why the public sectors are more likely to get caught, then there is something seriously wrong with you.[/quote]
I can not beleive that the government does not have a filter on their internet access. Here at my office we can not even look at You-Tube.
I thought everybody spent 8 hour a day on porn sites