National Science Foundation Hit by Internet Porn Scandal
One official, for example, spent 331 days on porn sites, chatting with nude or scantily clad women, sparking an investigation that cost taxpayers anywhere between $13,800 and $58,000, alone. Before resigning after being exposed, the official attempted to explain away his frisky forays by claiming he was only chatting with these poor, disadvantaged (and, by total coincidence, naked) girls because he wanted to help them make a little money, so they could "help their parents," the investigation report explains.
Another employee was caught with a plethora of pictures, videos, and even a PowerPoint slide presentation of pornographic images. When asked the last time he completed a day at the office without downloading porn, he responded, "Um, I can't remember."
But the scandal really isn't all that funny, no matter how many snide chuckles or 'NSF(W)' jokes it elicits. It's an indelible stain on the credibility of the NSF, and a despicable waste of money. What is, perhaps, even more shocking, though, is that employees were able to access porn so easily from their workplace. Very few office networks allow access to questionable sites, so how could a government-run institution have such a porous content control system? Though Deputy Inspector General Tim Cross confirmed that the NSF had plugged those holes, it's still pretty amazing that there weren't more controls already in place.
We sincerely hope that the problem is indeed fixed, and that the NSF and its employees can go back to giving money to scientists fighting cancer, and not to webcam girls doing their best "Private Dancer." [From: The Washington Times via The Huffington Post]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
G. Xavier Robillard said 1:10PM on 9-30-2009
This is a non-story. First of all it's coming from the Washington Times, not known as a paragon of journalistic integrity. Second, there are only 7 cases of employee misconduct involving pornography over 1200 employees.
The article from the WTimes is another attempt to tarnish science. Tempest, meet teakettle.
Realistically, spending between $13 and $58K on investigations? Net Nanny licenses and administration would likely cost more in IT time. And why is that broad number? Does the Washington times not actually know how much the NSF has spent on misconduct? Or are they providing that range duplicitously? The actual number could be $13.9K, but they can report it as between 13 and 58 to make it seem like a lot more.
Reply
DarkLight said 2:02PM on 9-30-2009
LOL, exactly what I was going to say...
7 out of 1,200? Please!
The whole article is a joke, except, ironically, the part about the NSF(W) jokes
There are lots of far more stupid things that cost far more money to taxpayers
xtranombre said 3:34PM on 9-30-2009
I'm actually curious why the time they spent looking at porn is somehow a less productive use of their time than checking out sports scores, shopping online, Facebooking or any of a hundred other things that people do when they're supposed to be working. Unless the porn contained illegal content like kiddie porn the only chief difference would be that it involves (gasp) sex.
I have to agree with G. Xavier- this seems less like a story and more like means to stain government and science with one brush.
Reply