Security Fears Prod Firms to Limit Staff Web Use

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Companies are limiting employees' use of free Internet services, such as Skype and video downloading, to protect themselves from viruses, communications traffic jams and regulatory missteps, the Wall Street Journal reports. ABN Amro's global head of strategy and engineering tells the WSJ, 'I'm not allowing Skype because I don't know what it does.' Some colleges and departments at Cambridge University also ban Skype. The limits affect executives as well as the rank-and-file, the WSJ finds: ' "I used to think nothing of checking my Yahoo mail several times a day," says Global Crossing Chief Marketing Officer Anthony Christie. Now that he can't, his long workday makes it hard to avoid using his work email account for personal messages, he says.'"

Comments

Block by default.

[blowdart]

I'm not allowing X because I don't know what it does does not necessarily equate to X is bad

Banning an unknown service from a network is the more sensible default decision for a corporate network to take. Firewalls should block everything by default, corporate desktops should stop installations of anything not checked and cleared. Why should skype be any different?

Locking down net access at work makes sense

[rbanzai]

I just started as IT manager for a small advertising agency. The systems were wide open before and it seems like every machine has Limewire, skype, five different IM programs... and lots and lots of problems.

When these items cause problems that reduce productivity they have to go. It's that simple.

Due to unrestrained (and uninformed) users I now have to go over all 50 machines with a fine-tooth comb to scrub off the bad stuff. Several of these machines are probably going to have to be wiped. This is 100% due to user loaded "personal" software.

As I fix each machine they are getting locked down. I've been directed by management to prevent users from pirating music on company machines or using filesharing to share pirated music. I don't see anything unreasonable at all about that.

Any app that is well-behaved and does not expose the company to liability is fine with me. Otherwise it has to go.

The Internet is not only for pr0n

[lushman]

As a consultant based overseas, using my client's corporate internet for Skype actually SAVES them a fortune. They would normally pay for the POTS international phone calls we make (VERY $$$$$), but the fact that they allow Skype means that we make all of our calls Skype-Skype without it costing them (or us) anything in call costs. Bandwidth charges are negligible in comparison.

If firms continue to be ignorant about new or alternative technologies then they will continue to be left behind. These savings can be significant over the long term, financially as well as productivity wise. Companies in the future will be split into two categories - those that embrace new technology and those that struggle under malinformed regimes run by beaurocrats who prefer the trusted path, the path of least resistance, over the newer, technologically superior one. I've seen this too many times than I'd care to remember.

Re:Oh noes

[kfg]

What's next? Complaining that you can't use company funds to go on a vacation? Complaining that you can't use company computers to play games?

Complaining that the shackles won't let you move more than 3 feet from your desk?

Tell ya what, if I can't use the company phone/email to make that doctor's appointment or let my wife know I'll be home late, well, I'm leaving for the day, and you can fuck your deadline and TPS reports.

I work because it is necessary to maintain my life. I do not work so I can maintain yours. If we cannot formulate a reasonable social contract where we both benfit our lives by pooling our resources you will have to do without me. I am neither your mommy nor your slave.

KFG

KFG

Good plan

[TomatoMan]

ABN Amro's global head of strategy and engineering tells the WSJ, 'I'm not allowing Skype because I don't know what it does.'

I expect a few hundred flames of this statement, but it's a rock-solid security policy. Yes, this guy probably "should" know what Skype is in most people's opinions, but his default "deny" policy for anything he doesn't know is correct, and that attitude WILL prevent trouble. On a corporate network, especially one potentially carrying any kind of sensitive data, anything not specifically allowed should be denied. If employees can make a case about what any new service is and why they need it, it can be evaluated and perhaps allowed, but it should be denied by default.

Re:Oh noes

[Khammurabi]

Nobody needs AIM at work.

Actually, the company I work for requires it. It's very intrusive and time consuming to either walk over to someone's office, or call the person up right then and there. The person could be in a meeting or busy, and your walking over or calling can be very disruptive.

IM is just a faster form of e-mail, and (just like e-mail) it requires discipline not to fritter away the company's time "talking" on it all day. But there have been quite a few instances where my COO or a trainer shoots off an IM during a presentation with a question. IM is useful in that it is quick and discrete.