Slashdot Mirror
Unlock Internet or Risk Losing Staff?
Dan Warne writes "People don't want to work for employers who heavily restrict internet access, a senior Microsoft executive said in a keynote speech at the opening of Tech.Ed 2006 Sydney today. From the article: 'These kids are saying: forget it! I don't want to work with you. I don't want to work at a place where I can't be freely online during the day," said Microsoft Senior Design Anthropologist Ann Kiera. She dubbed internet-wary employers "digital immigrants" and said the new wave of younger workers were "digital natives".'"
Nothing for you to see here move along...
Damn work filters.....I'm quiting
Aye, there's no way I'm working without my porn site access. Can't get a single thing done without it!
That and all the chat channels, the streaming music videos, and all those flash sites.
...there's always port 80.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
Now this statement isn't true at all. Anyone who has ever worked in network security realizes what a complete nightmare this is and that "technology" is having a hell of a tough time keeping up. This article is completely dismissing security as the reason for blocked websites. Leaky browsers and constantly exploited new technologies have made security a serious priority. (I'm not even gonna go into the irony that these comments were made by Microsoft execs...)
A company I had worked for recently had systematically blocked most popular online services over the past couple years. Myspace, hotmail, AIM, gmail... And I see the reason behind it considering we were in a sensative compartmented information facility that restricted external communication (not even allowed to have a cell phone). The company couldn't afford to have a large-scale information leak caused by viruses and/or non-secure communication.
However, there were always ways around. I could still check my old college email through their website, which was not on the restricted list. There were endless forums that were also left unrestricted (they left slashdot alone, thank god). And there was recently an incident within the company recently where someone was fired for pornography. So the general frustration stemmed from the fact that people could still spend all day on forums and looking up porn, but I wasn't even allowed to check my gmail, update my myspace, or send an IM. However, I'm sure the company would've like to block every forum, porn site, and web-based email site if they could. It's just not something that is in any way possible.
At any rate, I don't think most companies are blocking these sites because they are seen as unproductive, but rather for the risks that they pose.
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He answers that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
So please corps! Unban MSN messenger from firewalls and the likes so we don't lose that much revenue. K thx bye.
Do they think they should be able to talk on the phone all day too? While they are "working". I'm a "digital native" and still think its up to the employers. If the employees don't want to work without internet then they should get the boot, screw letting them quit. Their job is to work, not surf.
2) WTF from TFA:
*shakes head* Child abuse?
3) It's Anne Kirah, not Ann Kiera. I know she works at MS and has a ridiculous job title, but at least try to spell one of her names right.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I am commenting from my work right now. Working for a company which does not allow me some non-work related surfing is not acceptable for me. I want to be informed about what's going on, and as long as my productivity does not suffer, employers should encourage web-surfing.
That might be one of the most sensible things ever to come out of the mouth of a Microsoft executive.
I'd really love it if I would get paid for posting comments on Slashdot. :-)
Go waste somebody else's money. I don't want a bunch of slackers "working" for me, taking my money, and doing other things when they should be productive. I don't ask my people to work overtime becuase we schedule so that things get done in the alloted schedule. If you are so addicted to the internet that you can't put in 4 hours before lunch and 4 hours after lunch without access to all of it, you're not going to do what I need you to do.
Oh, and you'd better not spend a bunch of time on your cell phone in my office either. Everybody has emergencies...nobody has them so often that I should know which ringtone your girlfriend is.
Oh, and get off my lawn you damned whippersnappers.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
The issue of internet access at work and its use is a curious one. We have been allowing people to use the telephone at work for years in a limited fashion. As long as it didn't invade the work day too much it was sort of accepted. It also generally wasn't recorded.
Internet is just telephone communications. No different. Treating it differently isn't wise. The employers are right though if the use gets out of hand.
There is of course the problem of not knowing what browsing is legitimate anyway. This isn't easy to determine either. Remember that clicking on a link might be accidentally the wrong one or you might be searching a topic and get one of those trick sites listed for the Porn types. It isn't really a matter of any or filters, it is a matter of content and time.
Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
Why is this in YRO? You have no right to internet access of any kind while at work. Yes, it's common, and I believe any loss of time from a worker doing a little browsing or IMing (within limits) is more than made up for by the productivity gained from a happier worker, but it isn't a violation of your rights to not have access or to have limited access.
Amazing how you can pervert one science to make yourself sound smarter. Senior Design Anthropologist? What does she do? Dig through old Commodore PET and TRS-80 computers looking for clues to the outgrowth of the Internet?
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
In the US, the labor market is a buyer's market - there are more people who need work than employers willing to hire them. Because of this employers are able to impose annoying rules on their employees because they know their employees don't have anywhere else to go, since the employee's only recourse is to quit. If people would start wielding this power to their advantage it would benefit everyone.
On the other hand, unfettered internet access is frequently not a good idea, especially for security reasons - people downloading malware, etc.
rooooar
Won't someone think of the children?!
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
First there was Chief Hacking Executive, now Senior Design Anthropologist? What next? Chief Chair-Throwing Gorilla? Oh wait...
Asshole.
Yet another announcement that gets to my "Well, DUH!" category.
If I'm responsible for my company's server, why can't I read slashdot/forums/other, or maybe read bash.org when I'm bored?
Not allowing employees (specially IT staff) to browse freely is like not allowing a secretary to write e-mails for her friends, you get the idea.
Some of the things might include checking a weather forecast. Takes 10 seconds but kinda important if you play sports which are dependent on the weather. You can plan around it.
the more they over-think the plumbing the easier it is to stop up the pipe
Well isn't it the business's network? That means they should be able to do what they want with it. Whether completely open it up or block certain sites/ports. Like it or not, they have good reasons for it. Employees for one may be more likely to sit around browsing the web rather than doing the work they're assigned. Security threats from spyware/adware could increase. Yes, you can block those certain sites, but those sites tend to be less likely be accessible from a network with some kind of surf control. I work in a help desk and the spyware/adware problems went down tremendously once we implemented our surf control system. Yes there are some sites I wish I could go to, but its not that big of a deal to me...I can still get to slashdot. People have to grow up and realize that they're getting into the real world, and the real world does not revolve around any one person. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying that, but its how the world works fortunately or unfortunately. Besides, most companies will unblock a site if it's blocked but is needed for work.
What's the matter, James? No glib remark? No pithy comeback?
As a manager, I get peeved when deliverables are late but I see developers checking out some girl on Myspace. I have no problem with job-oriented surfing, but I want limits on what is accessed by my staff.
I want my teams focused on the job at hand during the day when the entire staff is around to help each other out. Having people working outside normal hours, while admirable (kind of), may be unnecessary if more work and less surfing is done during the day.
I guess the catch is I got out of college in 1992. But at that time I would not consider a job where I didn't have always on internet connection. I wanted to have e-mail, access to net-news, and the ability to telnet into computers on campus where I still had accounts.
Think Deeply.
If people are going to quit their jobs because they can't play on the internet,
well, they were not working very hard to begin with. Your company doesn't need people like that.
The majority of the internet is a 'barrier to productivity' for undisciplined people.
The time and place to play on the internet is at home.
You still have your cell phone for quick calls and text messaging.
Lock it down and prevent software download virus infections and hacks to your corporate systems!
About a year ago, my company's internet filter started blocking Slashdot. That lasted all of a couple hours. I think some of my co-workers (who managed the company's directory services) complained. Unfortunately, the filter now blocks a couple of my favorite webcomics and Wikipedia (filtered because they are "Personal Pages"). I used to use an anonymizer to get around the filter, but they've blocked that too.
I am a network adminstrator for a fairly large company (3500+ users). We REALLY do try to strike a careful balance between what is blocked and what is allowed. We don't allow access to Pornographic sites, Web-Based email or Chat(Instant Message... most forums are allowed) sites... however most everything else is allowed. All downloads are virus scanned at the perimeter, and our users don't seem to mind seeing the "THIS SITE IS BLOCKED" page because they generally understand that we only block things that might harm the user's PC (spyware/virus)or the company (sexual harrasment suit, defamation etc...).
Those who do complain usually come back from visiting a client site (top 5 oil companies) and remark how OPEN we are compared the them =)
Both the article and the summary seem to imply that she came up with the "digital immigrant" and "digital native" labels. While others may have posited the idea prior, it seems that Marc Prensky has been discussing this (warning - PDF) since at least 2001. It is within the larger issue of how we reach these natives to educate them. It is a concept easily used elsewhere because the relevancy and the approach it suggests are easily seen. I find it somewhat amusing, however, when others simply use it as an observational tool, using it more as a justification for their approach than a truly meaningful response to a larger issue. I wasn't there for the keynote address, so I can't accuse Anne of this, specifically. But it does seem like a psuedo-intellectual argument designed to impress the crowd while giving only surface-level answers to the issue.
The main reason that the internet is locked down at my work(a large canadian bank) is for secutiry. Its not to stop people form browsing. Obviously for sexual harasment, etc reasons pron and things of that nature are blocked.
But also they block webmail, webmsn, pastebin's and other technologies like that.
Otherwise whats stoping me from grabbing this 10 meg spreadsheet with all kindsa of useful customer info on it and emailing it to myself at home?
Only email i get is companny mail through outlook, and everything i send is logged for the next 7 years.
Why do people expect to be given free internet access at work? Your there to work, not to check your personal mail, or watch some youtube videos. Its a perk if they allow these things, but i dont think they should be expected
-EL
And I have the right to work at another company that has a more open internet connection.
I worked at one job where 6 months after I was hired they installed websense on the firewall. It took me and the other coders 45 min to get an anon proxy working. A week later they removed websense cause two thirds of the company was using proxies. Of course the net admins at this job weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.
as a new crop of worker refuses to perform jobs because they can't have internet access, freely, there will be massive job openings for guys like me that are old enough (not old, 31) to respect an employer's rules and security, realizing there's a reason for restricting access to distractions like the internet. Oh, but if American workers refuse the job, you mean I'll have to swim to India to get it?
I can't survive without my daily dose of popups, spyware and weird malicious javascript hacks at work!
Hep me! Somebody hep me!!!!
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The majority of the internet is a 'barrier to productivity' for undisciplined people. [emph. added]
That [undisciplined people] is what you should kick out, not internet access.
There are very few people who can continously concentrate on doing quality job on the same thing for 8 hours, if there are any at all. In fact, I'd say if someobody can do 4-6/8 hours serious productive work (here I'm talking about work requiring continuous, not-negligable amounts of brain usage) that's really good. Why you should pay them for the remaining hours from 8 too ? So that they spend that quality time with you and with your competition, that's why.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
All in all, it is incredibly annoying. In stark contrast, the security / tech ops group in my last company couldn't have been cooler. They basically opened up all the ports, but said plainly to us that they can monitor what we request. So it was up to us what we could browse. You could get fired just as easily if you looked at porn, but the security group was mature enough to trust us.
At my workplace we have a desktop for our own company usage/personal usage which is unrestricted, and them a tablet that is locked down for use on the clients network. Makes tech support fun again, and I'm actually really productive when I have work to do. About time companies start to notice this trend.
Mod me down im a newf (wiki)
Too many children (all ages, Im talking mentally) are worried about what can I get. You work for a company. It is their resources, they get to determine how you can use it. If you are caught violating those rules... you should be fired. Why should an employer put up with people who cant even be trusted to obey the rules? I grant that I would love to surf freely from work, but if my employer doesn't want me to surf.. I wont. A school my wife works at is trying to stop people from visiting myspace.com, not because of the content but because but because of the bandwidth drain. Some people are actually trying to be productive but cant because some person wants to surf. When your surfing actually stops someone from being productive, you are hurting a company (or a persons senior project). Remember, you work for the company.. what is bad for the company is bad for you. If you are the cause... its real bad for you.
Stop signs are only Suggestions
The quote was taken out of context. Here is the full exchange.
Employer: Of course we have Internet, but our firewall restricts access to "inappropriate" sites during working hours.
Kids:Forget it! I don't want to work with you. I don't want to work at a place where I can't be freely online during the day. I'll just move back in with my parents and use their DSL.
Parents: Sure, OK. What do you think would be a fair rent?
Kids: Rent? Where are we suposed get the money to pay rent?
[parents and employer exchange significant glances]
Parents: Umm, honey, I don't know if they explained this in school. "Work" is the eight hours out of the day when you do things you'd rather not be doing so you can pay for things like food and rent.
Employer [taken aback]: Eight hours?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
At school, though, its a different story. Everything is blocked. Hell, we had google blocked at one point. Sadly, our tech department can't understand the difference between webmail, forums and news sites (the NY Times is constantly switching between blocked and unblocked). I understand we're there to learn, but seriously, why block everything but the school webpage and some half-ass "research sites" (Which normally give no information which is useful to you, anyways)
Warning: Corny karma killing post above.
What I think is funny is that most people here are posting from work.
If a member of my team is efficient enough to finish everything I require in the time allotted, well then it's their little bonus for being so efficient. If they're not finishing everything I require in the time allotted, then if it resists corrective measures and goes on long enough, I fire them. I don't care if the reason is that they're good but just can't stop blogging at work or whatever. The proof is in the pudding. A coder might be Einstein, but if he never does any work then he's no good to me.
Thinking that blocking internet access will make a difference is a childish yet warped paternalistic impulse.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
You're absolutely right. In my days we'd have to walk two miles, in the snow, uphill BOTH WAYS to get to the water cooler to gossip and otherwise waste company time - and we LIKED IT.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
I refused to lock down internet access. This has played out well. If you expect someone to work long hours, expect for him or her to buy things online, check message boards and just play around. Everyone knows what they need to do, and productivity is high.
Intelligent Design
I have worked for two ends of the extreme, one company that was very restrictive with internet access and one that was wide open.
Working in IT I found the overly restrictive company made repairs and troubleshooting increasingly difficult since many times I had to research a problem at home and then fix it at work. I remember one incident where we had a scsi backplane go bad on a server that was out of waranty, they had a couple of lower techs hammer against it for 3 days before passing it to me. I looked at the error logs, ran some diagnostics and looked up some error codes, had the problem isolated in 10 minutes, but ended up getting written up for "using the internet" on company time. I found that after a while I did the bare minimum required not be fired since half the time I was doing busy work at home and the real work at home anyway.
The other company was a telco provider we had unrestricted access, it was great troubleshooting and repairs had an amazing turnaround time, but there were people that abused the priviledge. Eventually they weeded themselves out through poor performanace reviews or being called out for slacking off. Basically it comes down to what kind of employees you have, if they are responsible and take their job seriously internet access isnt a problem, its a matter of trust. If you dont trust your employees you either need better ones or perhaps need to find out what you may be doing that causes them to have no dedication to the job.
SSH or SSL tunnel to my home machine (depending on whether SSH is blocked) and proxy surfing and IM through that. Or, worst-case, using Tor.
Though I do agree it's less desirable to work for a place that restricts internet access, the truth is you're there to work, not surf. It wouldn't affect my decision unless I had a choice between two equal places where one does and one does not restrict, which isn't usually the case as there are for more important considerations than net freedom (i.e. salary, benefits, skills to aquire)
Seriously, if not being able to surf myspace or IM your buddy will keep you from accepting a position, that's just sad.
I work at a great company with intentionally lax internet policies. It's definitely for the best.
I'm a tecnical writer and I rely on a great number of resources to get my job done. For instance, I have friends that are engineers, IT professionals, and designers and it saves me a ton of time to be able to speak to these unofficial resources unhindered when I have questions. IM and FTP are far more convenient than email and fax when I need a mockup or schematic. Sometimes I attend webinars that stream on weird ports, and the IT staff is always happy to temporarily tweak the firewall just for me. Other services like telnet and remote desktop come in handy when there's a resource I need that I've forgotten at home.
Even our Exchange spam filter is optional, which is a good thing since on the rare day where I get 1 spam I get 3 emails from the filter telling me about it.
I guess I'd be an "internet native" according to TFA, but even if I wasn't I'd be frustrated by any hinderance on internet connectivity. If my workplace blocked websites, my generation knows to just use a sneaky proxy like Babelfish anyway.
I respect my company for respecting me.
Well I have been working as software developer for several companies and I always demanded full internet access and the network folks to keep their hands of my work equipment. Sure for the average worker, lock some of it down. But through MSN Messenger I connected quickly to all other developers all over the building to quickly discuss things, send links, etc. Sure you can use the phone on the desk, but that's a much bigger distraction. Walking over only when it's big. The chatting can be done while you work, but for phoning you need to stop working. I also need access to any arbitrary site, to look up information I need, discuss framework or development tool oddness and their workarounds etc etc. And indeed I did read my personal email and news sites at work at well. So boohoo. On the other hand, I'm also the guy that you could never find at the cantina or taking a coffee break. On several occasions I have needed to go all the way up to the CEO to get network folk to stop messing with my stuff. One brilliant networking person once had the idea of installing Norton Corporate AntiVirus. You can guess what happened next. Never again. Here's all the stuff that needs daily backups, and that's all your touching. Security updates? I'll pick them up myself thank you, after reading up exactly what update breaks what. I'll install my personal choice of AV software that can actually run on development machines and otherwise make sure my system is doing fine. I'll take full responsibility. As for stuff like MySpace and such... well who uses that crap anyways. I'll do all that and still be more productive than if anyone messes with my systems. Today however, I am the owner of a startup. I'm pretty sure I'd quit if I'd lock 'my' network down though. Call me paranoid, but I never trust network folk (for good laughs: if you have the authority, go visit the networking center of your local big city's police hq and take a look at the things you can find there...)
I see this all the time at my company, and in the long run, it leads to burnt-out employees. We've had much more success with staff retention and productivity my asking that employees do not work from home (to the point of canceling almost all of our GotoMyPC accounts), do not stay late (with exceptions, of course). If employees want to get their work done, they've got to do it during the work day. If they don't, well, they face the same situations that most employees who fail to meet their objectives face...
Work is work. As an employee (and this is the part of the legal definition according to the IRS, btw), your employer has the right to tell you how and when you do your job. If you want to work on your own schedule, you should be freelancing or consulting.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Is to create your own website with an upload facility. Or your own webmail. Or anything that isn't (a) blocked by services such as Websense, (b) dependent on non-standard ports and (c) isn't publicly known.
Though I've never used it for anything untoward, I did create such a site for storing things like my CV, code samples, etc., which is password protected and not linked from any other website. Works well, and since it's using only port 80, it's generally freely available wherever I am.
The fact is, were there's a will there's a way - if I was of a mind to steal work-related information, as an IT pro I would find a way - either something already available or something I could create. Short of blocking all external access, or allowing only white-listed sites, employer's will always be on the back foot.
john
My workplace recently increased their filtering. It went from blocking the usual suspects to blocking all sorts of nonsense. I discovered the changes right away too... I loaded up slashdot and it blocked any article from games.slashdot.org...
So I checked some forums that I was reading... I can still browse one of the games related ones... but not it's main site...
There are blocks for streaming media(google video still works), and free hosting sites. It's gone overboard in terms of blocking. Although I think it was more of a regime change here that caused the increased blocking.
I'd rather work for a place that had an intelligent policy about these things. Not just randomly blocking sites because they may cause a problem.
Pay me to screw off or I'll go to work somewhere else!
"The door is to your left."
They're trying to somehow justify why they silently rolled out http.sys, a rebranded IIS, as a kernel driver with Win XP SP2. With that on the machine, each and every XPSP2 and Vista machine has an HTTP server running as a kernel driver that ordinary user processes can use to publish whatever they want.
But that old guy won't let us bring our small tv sets into the workplace and put them on our desks -- he just doesn't understand since he didn't grow up with it.
There are so many things I hate about this article...
Kirah cited a Norwegian psychologist who claimed that young people were now so reliant on digital communication that "taking a mobile phone away from a teenage girl is the same as child abuse."
I worked with a contractor who talked on his cell phone a lot. a lot. several hours everyday. he constantly interrupted team efforts to talk when it rang, he would walk out of the room talking on the phone and leave us waiting for him. i wanted to cram that cell phone so far up his ass that i didn't hear the ringtone. myself and another employee approached management and had him fired, he worked for one week and maybe produced about 2 hours of work. if there is some company that panders to letting people chat on cell phones, than i hope i never end up working at it.
"Digital communication is part of people's lives now. Their friends online are the people they identify with."
The first bit is fine, i dig that, i digitally communicate with friends more often than i actually see them. I moved a lot so my friends are mostly far away physically. This has nothing to do with the work place.
People were increasingly making use of anonymous proxies that couldn't be easily blocked by corporate firewalls, bringing in their own wireless broadband services for use with a personal laptop or with a work PC or accessing instant messaging via mobile phones and PDAs.
I knew there was a reason that people signed agreements before getting accounts and that I installed group policies to prevent people from making use of the companies network. If you bring your own laptop to do work, than great, do work, but if you expect to do what you do at home with your laptop, than i'm bringing my bedroom furniture from home and making my office like home too, where i will stop working and just read comics - good luck getting me to fix your pc then.
"Bill Gates said years ago that if you worry about internet productivity, you're worrying about people stealing pens from your stationery cupboard... there are bigger things to worry about."
Nothing to worry about, eh? i installed websense for a nameless international company and ran it in just monitor mode first and than selectively started blocking. you know what i ended up seeing was pretty repulsive. late night warehouse workers going through child porn and rape fetish sites. I so hope this quote is misrepresented, but to say thats on the level of worrying about stealing pens is revolting. There are more things happening than just a loss of time with respect to employee network access.
Arrigo said employers needed to rethink their assumptions about internet usage. "For a lot of people now, instant messaging is a legitimate work tool that allows quick communication between colleagues, avoiding voicemail-tag and long distance charges, yet many companies block instant messaging completely."
A survey done by logging and going through instant messages at one company I worked at showed that although instant messaging had been added for easy employee communications of technical issues, it was 90% used for informal chatting. So much so that it was discovered that people were dodging work through loopholes to maintain chats. In other words it was a direct impact on the whole companies performance that was solved by removing the instant messanger. Chat's online would extend for hours at a time.
I was never the manager at any of the above places, but these are just my personal experiences alone. in every case, I would have to take up the slack generated by the employees (expect in the warehouse case, that would have been someone else, but that employee was fired only because the web blocker caught him, otherwise he would have continued to be there and a possible danger to the female staff - not proven,but if you saw what i saw you would have crapped).
If there is some company that is with Anne Kirah on these statements, than I hope to never have the misfortune of working for them.
I wonder if any actual studies have been done on workplace policy... Google is one example of a company which doesn't go all Dilbert PHB on its employees and hope a paycheck will keep 'em there, I wonder if any similar companies exist?
"Bill Gates said years ago that if you worry about internet productivity, you're worrying about people stealing pens from your stationery cupboard... there are bigger things to worry about."
To give credit where its due, Bill Gates is right.
If your employees are surfing the net at work and not delivering, maybe PHB's should ask themselves why your employees aren't motived. Perhaps they might actually perform if they see something good out of what they are doing. Oops, I'm asking too much.
One of my class instructors who happens to be the admin for the schools proxy servers actually has some sites (i.e livejournal) redirect to the Playschool (load up that on someones machine and watch people walk past) website instead of letting proxy servers upstream return a fairly bland, BSOD-type block message. Reason? Providing a source of embarassment gets people back to work instead of a hostile BSOD that ticks people off and lowers the morale in general.
My employer has implemented some St. Bernard firewall software. I can get to Target's web page, Ebay, paypal, and amazon.com, but I can't get to the discussion forums on www.hp.com, and they've blocked groups.google.com. As it is now, I am forced to SSH to my home PC and use an SSH socks proxy to access those webpages. What idiots. Varka
I've been a self-employed freelancer for eight years who took a full-time job six months ago. In this time I've been able to observe that the single biggest drain on employee productivity is farting around on the Web.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not advocating corporate firewall fascism. However, it seems to me that for employees with poor self-management skills unfettered Web access is an enema for provoking ass-blasting levels of laziness. It is a procrastination enabler for those who are poor are organizing their time.
What's the solution? Obviously we should all be graded upon hiring to determine whether we're elite enough to control our own net access, or whether we need net nannies. Okay, that may be less obvious and more simplistic and stupid but still -- you see what I'm getting at: painting employees with too broad a brush is tricky here, but abuse of net privileges is personality dependent.
(/me looks around, checks for managers.)
Well, I'm off to read MeFi and fuck around with my blog. Give me a heads-up if anybody important is coming.
These stories are free but worth money.
As a sysadmin myself, I was put in charge of our Internet security and web site filtering strategy.
Initially, they implemented a Squid proxy that was set up so either you were granted "completely unrestricted" access, or "restricted" - which meant you could *only* visit web sites in an "allowed" list. The "unrestricted" access was, of course, originally only intended to be used for the sysadmin himself, and perhaps the owners of the company.
What ended up happening over the years (before I ever worked for them) was "key" people in many different departments received "unrestricted" access, because they threw huge fits or became too big a drain on the admin's time - asking for access to slews of sites needed for puchasing, getting price quotes, etc.
After looking at a number of options, I ended up using Dansguardian site filtering combined with Squid. The cost of software licensing or subscriptions was zero - making it MUCH easier to get approval for. (And if it didn't work out, nobody was going to "force" me to keep trying to use a broken solution, just because we spent $$$'s on it already.)
Our goal was always to put the brakes on productivity losses (and even to prevent potential lawsuits stemming from someone viewing porn and another employee being offended at seeing said porn, or what-not). As has been proven time and time again, unless you completely deny someone Internet access, he/she can eventually find ways to get to sites you'd rather not have them using while at work. The idea is to implement a solution that stops as many "grave offenses" as possible, while appearing pretty much invisible to regular Inet users.
I've found that a nice "side benefit" of doing this is the fact that you also tend to screen out some of the biggest contributors to loading spyware and other nasties on people's PCs. (Porn sites are a big offender in this area, for example.) But no, we didn't get into the site filtering as primarily a "computer security" issue at all.
What if the work was simple 8 hours a day, no more, and in exchange you didn't have to have a laptop, be on call, work from home etc... As I get older and maybe more professional, I'm finding that I'm a lot less streaky, I go to work and I perform, I don't have to wait to be inspired like I did a few years back (you know, some days you just aren't coding until after lunch..) I find it has a lot to do with a lot of things, my diet, skipping breakfast or not, excercise, etc. There were times in the past when I simply didn't feel it on a given day, I'd go to work, get face time, produce nothing and then go home. At the worst times, I'd bring work home too and hope that I got inspired that night or on the weekend. Now, I want a normal job and then I've got life outside of that. I don't want to drag a laptop full of code home if I don't have to. Maybe a work day is really 6 hours or something if you execute during that time. What if you could go to work, do the work and then completely leave it? That creates more time to play at home and jerk around on the 'net.
There are places where you cannot take recordable media in or out of the facility, it's a security risk. It's a simple value prop at some point, if you unplug the internet or (put proxy firewalls in) and the reduced "functionality" is a lot cheaper than the IT costs dealing with malware, viruses, etc.. I've done a lot of work for security companies building software and a lot of the stuff out there is bullshit, good practices do more to stop security compromises than any software does. Maybe it's more of a sign of the chaos that makes up the typical CSO office, they have no policy and they can't tell you what is important. Segment you network, there are a lot of parts that simply shouldn't ever be connected to the internet (say a build machine or your SAP database?) you can build simple firewall rules for that kind of stuff, you can use VPNs to allow connections. If you're not actually maintaining the computer, I think in a place of work then maybe you should know better than to simply run random programs you get in your email, find on flashes in the parking lot or download. it's very easy to setup rules and forward personal emails to your home account..
If your people don't treat their computers at work as their personal spaces and they know the policy and know better than to just run random excutables and they know that they are responsible for those machines, you'll cut down on the bad crap more than any IDS/IPS or other software product will.
From my experience, the young smart employees generally circumvent the restrictions. Problem solved.
In this thread, I've seen posts of the kind "The employer is right--web sites should be blocked," "Fire the unproductive people," and so on. What these posts are missing is something very key--happy employees are more productive than unhappy ones, happy people are those with control, and one aspect of control is being able to decide whether to waste time or use it wisely. The employer who blocks web sites is essentially saying, "We don't trust you to be intelligent enough to decide when to work and when to screw around. We don't believe there is a maximum number of productive hours in a time quanta, the remainder of which need to be spent on other things, or only damage will be done. We know better than you what is your best work strategy."
Who would want to work for an employer that effectively says, "We hire incompetent, unproductive employees?" At best, it's insulting to the person being hired. At worst, the person being hired is competent, and now he's got incompetent, unproductive coworkers to deal with.
Sigs are like bumper stickers.
but employees also need those few minutes to check the news, check a stock, putz around. That little bit of break relieves stress, and makes employees more productive when they hit their tasks again. It is absolutely necessary, employees simply cant work 100% at full productivtiy the entire day.
It becomes a problem when employees are doing too much of that but it is no different than gathering around the water cooler to shoot the shit. It makes them more productive.
For those people that think "you are there to work" I bet you absolutely work 100% of your day without exception...yeah right.
Ever notice the people that do try to go 100% without a few minutes break are the stressed out employee that causes more problems than they help.
The more restrictions you place on an employee the less autonamous they feel, which has a negative impact on employee morale, which means a less productive employee.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
It can be a godsend or an immense distraction.
I would never spend more than two minutes at a time at a website like MySpace assuming it was unblocked. I'd check my messages and maybe post a blog. Searching for chicks is something best done at home. Besides, with what people put as their backgrounds, you could very easily get fired for looking at someone's MySpace page.
On the other hand, I usually end up spending break reading slashdot, fark, or random wikipedia articles that pique my interest. They've already blocked wikipedia..
Usually during non-break hours I've got plenty of stuff to keep me occupied. I do, however, let my gmail sit open in the back ground just in case..its definately not a distraction to me, but I've worked at places where people do almost nothing but surf the internet and occasionally get something done when threatened. So it could go both ways for most people..
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
...I can't read the article because I'm at work
But they blocked FTP for security reasons. It's always funny to ask a supplier to send their new library to my webmail.
Digital Immigrant?
Uh huh.
I work in IT (as people probably know) consulting and service a 911 dispatch call center.
The workstations are restricted from using the Internet, with the exception of a (very) few government and/or explicitly job related sites - through a proxy server (squid).
Also, in the same government complex, 5 of the computers in the jail are also restricted in the same way (different site list, though).
Why?
Because having free and unrestricted access to the Internet only ends up with people downloading games/spyware/junk/explicit content. Intentionally or not. And when you rebuild a machine (that you're on-call for 24/7) in the middle of the night a few times, you'll also lobby the management to allow the restriction.
That's right. I recommended and implemented the almost total Internet ban on those machines.
And no, the computers do not run with Administrator users (they DO have to be Power Users, for the applications that are used) - but some of the nasty malware bypasses the Windows security models....
= Grow a brain...
makes it alot easier for dial home scripts in the OS to contact MS to check for subscription/license numbers etc.
These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
The cost of software licensing or subscriptions was zero - making it MUCH easier to get approval for. (And if it didn't work out, nobody was going to "force" me to keep trying to use a broken solution, just because we spent $$$'s on it already.)
Because that, in a nutshell, is how OSS is steadily worming its way into corporate IT.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
...as a toy, and using it as a tool.
I understand blocking IM, P2P, downloading/installing programs, flash- and video-heavy sites, let alone sites that contain illegal content or simply content that goes against company policy. I may not like the rules, but this is the company's computer and the company's bandwidth, so if I want to check my web-based email or whatever, I'll wait until I get home. Simple enough.
However, the downside of all this blocking is how much it can restrict the useful, lawful, and company-approved uses of the internet. Our company's filter periodically blocks such sites as dictionary.com, theweathernetwork.com, travel booking sites... This may not affect you if you're supposed to be coding all day, but if you're working on the admin side of things (writing documents, planning travel for your boss, etc.), these sites save a great deal of time and effort. (Please note that I said "periodically" before; nobody's quite sure why some days the filter blocks some sites, and other days it doesn't, even when the content of the site itself hasn't changed.)
As a further example, let's take a recent major project in my department that involved coordinating the inflow of information and graphics from branches across the country. Our mail servers can't send/recieve anything bigger than 2GB, but we needed to transfer files bigger than this on a regular basis. So some smart cookie set us up an FTP site. About halfway through the project, we suddenly couldn't access the FTP site through our work internet connection. Why? Because our IT department had suddenly "cracked down" and we were no longer allowed to use FTP sites. Despite the program manager (who is quite highly placed in the organization) repeatedly speaking with the IT people, IT still wouldn't unblock the site. I understand a blanket block on FTP sites because they can be used for personal use, but this was an FTP site run out of one of our sister offices specifically for work purposes. Suddenly we were forced to go back to mailing/couriering all of our drafts/work/etc. instead of sending it over the internet. However, the project deadline hadn't changed, so we ended up delivering late because we had to rely on transferring the files non-electronically.
It's this kind of policy that makes loyal, hardworking, company-rule-abiding employees want to quit. It's one thing to block recreational/illegal/whatever internet use; it's entirely another thing to keep employees from doing their job efficiently.
She dubbed internet-wary employers "digital immigrants" and said the new wave of younger workers were "digital natives".
Is that the right image we want? We all know what happened to the real natives once the European immigrants made it to North America...
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Not all jobs at a company (unless it so small that this question does not come up) are the same.
Which means the REAL statement is:
I am going to outlaw the internet for 'everyone'. But when I say 'everyone' I really mean everyone except high level management. Also, I don't realize it but the lower level IT people whose job it is to control the access have the ability and usually use that ability to give themselves unlimited access.
This statement demonstrates stupidity and poor business practice.
Why? Because different people have different jobs. A Receptionist that sits at her desk 9-5 simply waiting for people to either show up or call might very well have long slow periods where she is doing nothing. Reading myspace is fine for her. But she should never be viewing unitized pages such as YouTube where it takes up a set amount of time. Only a fool tells her she has to use the same rules as a C+ Programmer that routinely works 14 hour days but gets 20 minute sanity breaks every 3 hours, in addition to lunch.
My problem is not with saying this particular person should never be on the internet, that is the bosses' priveldge.
But work for a shmuch that thinks EVERYONE in his company should possible have the same job restrictions?
I would quit that job in an instant. The people are right to refuse the work.
Also, some people have said that "Right now it is an Employer's market" where employers can pick and choose. That is foolishness in my mind. First, each job market is different, especially for each person. As we are talking about people refusing a job, that pretty much proves that for the sub section of the job market we are discuusing it is a job SEEKER's market. Otherwise they would not be doing it. That may mean that only highly qualified people are refusing jobs, or that only people willing to take low paying jobs are refusing them, but for the job market section we are disccuing, it is clearly a job seeker's market, not the other way around.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Personally, I'm whole-heartedly in the liberal camp on this issue. I'm in a unique situation where I work that the boss tends to be in the other camp (no browsing, instant-messaging, etc in work time), but is also very open to suggestion.
/. have been 'discussed'. In fact, he even drew a picture of my morning as a box with about 20% filled with activities such as making coffee, having a cigarette, and browsing, stating that I was working at an optimistic capacity of 80%. I responded by drawing a similar box showing in the time in the day when I do work (about 09:30 - 20:30; a conservative estimate) and shading in the time in the day when I was officially being paid to work (09:00 - 18:00), asking him to pick one of the two as a basis for moving forward. He shortly agreed to drop the subject.
On more than one occasion I've been dragged into my managers office for a 'talk about the work ethics at company X' where my early-morning (08:30-09:00 more or less) perusing of sites such as
The point is that I do what I do because I bloody enjoy it. If I wanted to slack off, I'd work elsewhere where I could get away with it. I also do beyond what I'm expected to (on average, just over 50 hours a week). I take liberties sometimes, but also give a hell of a lot more. I don't expect people to start splitting hairs over the issue.
People are (usually) in the IT game because of what they can do for the company in question. I get my tasks done on time (or if not, because of a damned good reason) and ultimately, that is how I think grown-up IT professionals should be judged - for the fruits of their labour rather than anything else. If your work is suffering because one is wasting time, then that's different - time for that should of course be made up.
In conclusion: I, for one, don't welcome any pedantic management overlords - new or otherwise.
throw new NoSignatureException();
If the occupation requires a high level of skill and is in great demand then the most restrictive employers will lose employees to the least restrictive employers, assuming compensation is equal.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
We block access for anyone who does not need it or anyone who has violated company standards. We also use nanny software to block inappropriate material. On the whole, this works fairly well. It really is a question of productivity and responsible usage.
And the result? Angry employees, the ones that aren't are the ones smart enough to set up proxies, and there's plenty of websites that aren't blocked to waste time on anyways. Or some employees are going old school with "wasting time," reading magazines, chatting (like face-to-face, not online), or simply sleeping (sometimes I hear snoring from adjacent cubicles).
insert inflammatory anti-microsoft comment here
OK - how many of you are currently reading this (and reply to) at work?
I work for a software company here in eastern Canada. We're in the top ten of privately owned software companies in Canada. We're about 200 employees. At our office in Moncton, there are no restrictions on internet access of any kind. In fact, I'm at work right now posting this message and I have no worries of my boss or anyone else watching what I am doing because in this place of work, all of the employees are trusted to do their job and get their work done.
I find it's a lot more about the philosophy of the company as a whole. Here, most employees work 8:30-5:30 with an hour for lunch. No one's watching the clock and telling us we were 5 minutes late or took an extra 10 minutes for lunch. The idea is that the managers know the staff do their work and as long as the work is done, it doesn't matter if you surf the net or take a longer lunch. Just don't abuse it.
I have plenty of colleagues who surf the net, IM, stream audio, and plenty of other non-work related stuff with the internet and they have been doing it for years. They'll do it in front of the bosses, even the COO & CEO and there's no issues. The issues don't exist because for starters, everyone knows that they have a job to do and they do it. The company also makes sure that they hire people who are not going to abuse it or go too far. When someone abuses it they are confronted and the issue is dealt with. If they continue to abuse it, and their work suffers, the employee is let go. But here, it happens so little because people are paid well, treated well, treated fairly, and they all know it and respect it so there's no problems.
I can see the whole issue of "security" but where I work, we have good security software which does its job, and an excellent IT staff who are well trained, well educated, and well experienced. They do their job. The regular staff are well trained about things they should and should not do. I've seen no issues with security or huge virus outbreaks here yet and admittedly, I'm not in the IT department but when a virus hits, everyone knows.
I think the thing is that many companies are poorly run and when things start falling apart, they blame the employees for surfing the internet instead of addressing the real problem. I worked for one firm where a controller came to me and wanted me to monitor someones internet time because she thought they were doing too much of it. The employee maybe surfed the net for a whole 15 minutes of a work day, if that. Turns out, the controller was let go because she was incompetent (sp?) and couldn't manage her staff and time right. It wasn't about internet abuse. It was about having the wrong employee working for you.
My point is, it's not about just saying you can have access or not, it's part of the whole environment and not just a technicality about internet access. I've always been of the type that if the company gives a little, they'll get back far more, provided they have the right kind of people on their payroll.
No matter how fast computers get, you'll always be waiting - Matt Klem
the access of your employees, you have a problem. If you recongnize that one of your employees is addicted, do what you would do when he would be an alcoholic: talk to him and send him to the doctor. If you recongnize that too many employees are addicted or that their attitude towards the job is in a way that they spent thair time on ebay, you should think what's going wrong in your company. Maybe fire you director of human ressources, give mandatory courses to management about how to lead and motivate people. If you come, after all, to the conclusion that somebody is abusing the net and not doing his work because he is the wrong person for the job or the job is the wrong job for him, let him go. No restriction which you set can make him an efficient worker.
The only thing which i would be seriously concerned is security and increased administration cost. I would suggest to request the employes that they do theier private sutt in a virtual machin, which is not connected to the intranet (= on a separate VPN).
My college resticts access, whereby I cannot reach certain sites, due to the filter classifying it as "games", when in reality I am looking up certain algorithms, some of which may be useful for 3d games or whatnot and just mention the word "game" somewhere in the body (which is ironic, as the University is offering a "video gaming" degree or certification). Stuff like this happens all the time. Even in the free wifi area of the library where I spend my FREE time. Which is odd, as slashdot as a whole can be accessed, the filter pops up for game articles.
Also, FTP is restricted for some reason, so I cannot log into my own account on my own website to d/l any assignments or whatever I saved there on another computer.
I think an employee needs to be accountable and pron sites should be blocked or at least have a policy in place, and I don't mind people getting fired to abusing the access, but current filters place a burden on legitimate uses as much as bad uses. If you can't trust your employees, maybe they shouldn't be hired in the first place.
Another good way of cutting down on them slacking is perhaps put their terminals in a way so it can be seen what they are doing. (Perhaps for the lower level employees).
Its a perk if they allow these things, but i dont think they should be expected
I think you're actually agreeing with the Microsoft person here. That's exactly what they're saying.
Open internet access is a perk, and it's one that young employees value. So if you want to recruit and retain people, it's something that as an employer, you should consider. Someone might be willing to work for $35k a year at a place with unrestricted internet, but wouldn't touch a locked-off place for less than $40k. (I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass, admittedly, but you see my point I hope.)
I know people who work in informationally secure environments, and they get paid more than I do. But they need to be, because I wouldn't work there without being paid a lot extra -- I value having access to GMail, being able to keep my cellphone on me, being able to read Slashdot during slow periods, etc. Although I find it distracting and don't do it, other people even keep AIM running from work, to talk to their spouses/kids/whatevers at home, and this isn't a problem.
If I was considering a move to a workplace like theirs, where the computers are totally firewalled and nobody has install rights on them, I wouldn't do it unless there was a substantial increase in some other form of compensation, to offset the loss of these niceities.
That's all anyone is saying; you don't have to provide your workers with Internet access, but a growing number of young, educated people expect it, and probably won't take kindly to not having it around. If you want to compete, you'll either give people what they want, or you'll make it up in some other way (probably with pay).
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I can't recall the last employer I had that didn't indiscriminately block long distance calls without the keying in of a personal code that would tie the person making the call to the call.
If unrestricted internet access from work is so important for you that you'll refuse a job, then you're most likely one of the people who shouldn't be allowed that unrestricted access.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'm an ICT teacher, and recently went to a conference where there was a presentation about so-called Digital Natives (today's kids) and Digital Immigrants (adults).
/. crowd) a 'Digital Native', despite my age. Plus, for every kid with 'techno-joy', there will be another with 'techno-fear' (to paraphrase Mr. Izzard).
Apparently, the fundamental difference between us old-fart teachers (I'm 25, by the way) and today's kids is that they have grown up surrounded by technology to such an extent that their methods of working and interacting with others are totally different to ours.
For example, today's children are likely to be much better multi-taskers. They are used to an environment where the television is on, they are typing to friends using IM, chatting to other friends on the phone whilst simultaneously using Wikipedia to research that night's homework. That feeds back into today's classrom environments, because some kids can't cope without a busy, multi-tasking environment. Their idea of hell is to be sat in silence for an hour trying to revise, or working solidly on a piece of coursework without taking time-out to do something else every other minute.
All in all it was an interesting presentation, but I felt the speaker's idea that the dividing line is purely age based was nonsense. I'd consider myself (and I' d imagine a lot of the
Why did you post that in reply to the parent's facetious post? I'm seeing more and more of this on Slashdot and it's a serious annoyance. The mod system isn't terrible and if your post is good enough it will get modded up. However if your post is a mediorce one piggybacked on a funny first post, that will get modded up in preference to a potentially better one below.
Couldn't you have just started a new thread instead of piggybacking on the funny post? People read those you know.
May the Maths Be with you!
I see from reading the comments that we have two camps here. The 'internet hippies' that want a free internet for all. And those like me the BOFH's that say get your ass back to work. You want want more space? There, I deleted all your files, now you have more space.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/
http://members.iinet.com.au/~bofh/index.html
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
...filtered internet, no videogame policy, no beer in the fridge, and they write me up whenever I take more than an hour for lunch.
Well if perhaps you had neary any sort of security policy / solution in place, which is a management problem, it wouldn't be a problem.
IM is no more risky than getting email or documents from customers or other companies you do business with.
Basically the heavily restricted work environment is mearly a reflection of company mentality.
Who wants to work for a bunch of clampy assholes?
I am an IT consultant and I have only seen once business in the valley that heavily restricts internet access and this came after a lot of time wasting abuse which is only fair.
In 2006, it is a poor sysadmin who blames his users and sees tying their hands as a viable solution to his problems. If you haven't gotten the hint yet: I am saying that I would either already be using Linux (or some other secure and stable OS) or I would be lobbying for a switch to Linux. If the "higher ups" refused to do so, I would call them up in the middle of the night the next time the problem occured and inform them that they have some work to do.
Then again, I am not a fascist, nor would I ever support the fascists.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
The cost of software licensing or subscriptions was zero - making it MUCH easier to get approval for. (And if it didn't work out, nobody was going to "force" me to keep trying to use a broken solution, just because we spent $$$'s on it already.)
Because that, in a nutshell, is how OSS is steadily worming its way into corporate IT.
This is not an end-all statement. In fact, I've worked for many companies who refuse to use zero-cost software because there is no promise of future support. Finding out what went out of date, constantly seeking new solutions, and leaving your IT team with no product support becomes way too big of a hassle. Many companies, especially contractors, are even required by their customers to purchase licensed software with service agreements. Cheaper doesn't always mean better.
~cRon
I think it depends what you major in and what kind of skills you have.
It also depends on how picky you are in terms of what kind of work you'll do, or where you want to live. People who only want to work in a particular city (e.g. NYC, Boston, DC, etc.) or only want to do a particular sort of work, may well have the limited options that you describe. But such was not my experience, or that of other people I know. Granted it was a while back and the economy was a bit different then, but I definitely had a choice of places to work when I graduated college. But then again, I didn't have a lot of other requirements besides a paycheck: I was willing to relocate and travel, and my skills were fairly general.
Obviously, how much "say" a recent college grad has in where they end up working, changes radically depending on the economic environment. When companies are competing for new employees, as they were during the mid to late-90s, workplace perks become significantly more important than during a downturn, when the job itself is almost like a perk. And as I mentioned, the competition for employees differs radically from one region of the country to the other. A company in Boston might be beating college grads off their doormat with a stick, while one in Phoenix, Arizona might be desperately seeking young workers. It all comes down to tradeoffs.
I think that the internet access is similar to the attitudes companies had regarding dress codes a few years ago. Young employees saw suit-and-tie operations not only as personally restrictive, but also indicative of a corporate culture that they might not have liked; in response, a lot of places changed to "dress casual" over time. While we can argue about the merits of professional attire all day, there was definitely a lot of change as a result of companies trying to get rid of the stodgy appearance, and many of these improvments were aimed at recruiting new workers. Internet access could be similar: companies that don't restrict seem like they'd be better places to work, for reasons unrelated to the internet itself -- less overbearing management, more trust of employees, etc.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
As long as /. isn't filtered at my work place, I think I'll survive.
Have you guys, or someone you know of, considered "sprinkling" communal machines with universal access around the office? Restrict work machines to a whitelist, put the communal machines on a separate subnet without access to company resources, ...
Despite the unemployment figures you see, the US labor market is very heavily tilted in favor of the employee. Don't like your job? Quit and get another. The only thing stopping you from getting another job is your preference for jobs you will do, and your ambition in attaining the appropriate skills and training, not your ability to get one.
From an economic perspective, we are fully employed. Hell, we have so many jobs, we employ half of Mexico too!
Have communal machines conveniently, but visibly, sprinkled around the office. Let these communal machines have complete access to the internet but no access to company resources. Work machines would have a whitelist. The nice thing with this solution is that the responsible employee that is just going to spend a few minutes reading mail or news can do so, but the irresponsible employee who spends excessive amounts of time will be noticed by fellow employess. A publicly visible monitory also will reduce the porn site hits.
"Senior Design Apologist" is actually an interesting title. We've tons of "Evangelists", which connotes carrying the gospel to pagans (those who don't believe in any One Language/Platform).
By contrast, a Design Apologist would argue vehemently with heretics (users of the other language/platform).
As many others here have pointed out, it's very common to have specific 'BAD' sites (fark, somethingawful, espn, playboy, thehun, hotmail - depending on your organization's definition of 'BAD') blocked even when the rest of the Internet gets through just fine. That's the result of people managing one-off problems: "Hey, these guys can get to ESPN and download sports videos." "We need to block that site ASAP!"
:)
SurfControl and others that rely on accurate categorization of All The Stuff On The Internet ultimately just don't work. Somebody can always throw up a new site that simply mirrors an existing site, or provides proxy services, or has new interesting distracting content on it. And too often, especially in larger environments, the IT staff maintaining the filtering has to put in exceptions and workarounds to deal with "stuff that doesn't work" (I'm looking at you, update.microsoft.com). Just for kicks, see what happens in your carefully-monitored corporate network when you change your browser's user-agent string to impersonate the ActiveX controls used by Windows Update.
If you have decent desktop security to begin with, filtering out Bad Things from the Internet isn't going to improve your situation much; and if you don't, well, you're screwed anyway.
For some organizations, the time + effort of putting filtering in place is well worth it, compared to the reduction in liability and security exposure they gain; but honestly, it's a tech solution for a people problem. People goof off, waste time, and that's a problem that only their supervisors or managers can solve, not some security software on the network.
In my experience, the worse an organization is at people management and desktop management, the more intrusive, complex and byzantine its filtering setup becomes in order to compensate. And then it still doesn't work.
"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - Major Mike Shearer, UK
I'm at work right now.
Note that DansGuardian is GPL but claims to be proprietary. From its copyright page:
In other words, if you truly believe those mutually exclusive claims, you have to install it at home for your own personal use, then redistribute that copy to your office (as is your right under the GPL). Either that, or you could buy a "download license", which is right up there with SCO's "Linux License" for sheer return on investment.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm in the Business Analysis Dept, which really just writes software specs. I would say in a given day I do a solid hours work if any at all. There were days where I had more, but not many. I aksed around to some friends I've made here and it appears no one does much work.
Basically, I surf the web all day or bring a book and read it. My cube is back in a little cubby hole all by itself, and no one comes back here ever. I often wonder why I even come in here most days. I would do work if I had it. I actually go ask my manager for assignments every few days and he never has any. So he gives me some BS work like "get familiar with this spec" which involves reading a 600 page spec that I will never need to work with.
They have decently strict filters here and it makes people mad. I think the general idea is that if we have nothign to do at least let us surf the web a bit more freely. Anyways the whole point of this post is that if I had stuff to do the filters wouldn't really make me mad. I wouldn't be online too much and might not notice. But with nothign to do I bump into them constantly and get annoyed and try to bypass them.
If you haven't gotten the hint yet: I am saying that I would either already be using Linux (or some other secure and stable OS) or I would be lobbying for a switch to Linux.
Name a part of the US government with a sysadmin user structure that primarily uses Linux, targeted for the end-users.
Some people really don't know how to "manage up."
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
It depends on the job. If I'm working as a programmer or an electronics engineer, then I'm going to definitely need Internet access. Or would you prefer that I only use the knowledge that I can fit in my brain?
http://outcampaign.org/
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
"People don't want to work for employers who heavily restrict internet access"
It's not very often I agree with MSFT execs on...well, just about anything, but this time he's right on. I'll take contracts based on internet availability. I've got a customer now, it used to be a fairly open system. A good trade off between virus central and total lock down. Now they've gone completely Death Star and, quite frankly, it sucks. Can't get to any of my mail sites, which means when I'm at this customer my business goes into a black hole. Some of you would take the employers side on that and you can enforce those firewall rules if you wish, but after seven years building and maintaining their systems I'm not renewing this contract. You may not like that attitude, but that's just tough shit. I have options about where I work and I'll exercise them. The "A List" contractors and employees will leave and you'll be stuck with those who don't have any other options.
I want all the office perks. An internet connection that let's me get where I need to, even if it maintains a blacklist. That's okay if we can negotiate an intelligent exception. A pet friendly office, flex work schedule (less of an issue when you're a contractor)...all those bennies do make a difference.
You can stand on what's "right" from an employers standpoint all you want but the reality is if you make your work environment draconian enough your prize employees will quit. And no one, me being on the top of that list, will feel a bit sorry for you. Go ahead and be dead right, you're only hurting yourself. But really, who wants to work for people mired in the workplace past? Time to step boldly into the 2000's.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
You may not realize it, but you owe your new boss a thank you note and a box of chocolates.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
There are certainly a lot more people who WANT jobs than there are jobs available.
But there are often a lot FEWER QUALIFIED candidates than there are jobs. You might post an opening and get 100 applications of which only 2 people are possibly qualified. Now, those two people are in high demand, and given the choice between working for a company that blocks their internet and working for one that doesn't, they may choose to work for one that doesn't. Worse yet, what about existing employees? Do you want someone who has 5 years of experience in your company having extra incentive to leave because you try and control them like a 12 year old? Do you want that to happen in the middle of a key project?
The other thing that people are missing here is internet policy isn't just internet policy, it's a reflection of the 'psychology' of the organization as a whole. I would hesitate to work for a company that has a blanket, restrictive internet policy because I personally think it's a shitty policy. It's an attempt to fix with an inflexible rule what should be enforced with a good objective and review process controlled by strong management. If you need a policy that says 'Can't use the internet at all', that's a symptom of the company probably not being a good place to work for, at least not for me. I wouldn't want to work for management who thought that was a good policy and I wouldn't want to work with coworkers who management thinks won't get anything done if their internet is connected.
paintball
I have never had a job where the Internet access was filtered or restricted. I had jobs before businesses were connected to the internet but since Internet connectivity has become the norm, I haven't had a job where it was restricted. I don't even know anyone who has had such a job. I don't think there are many employers out there who are doing this.
-- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
I worked for a company that went from wide open to proxy. As I was the most internet-experienced tech on the support team, anything that needed to be researched fell to me. Also, I browse with multiple sessions of a browser open. Always have. Next thing I know, I'm getting called into the IS Director's office and given a list of where I've been. I pointed out each url and explained exactly why I'd been there, all work related. Their reply, "well.. this looks like you're not working, so don't do this again." Basically, they were asking me to not do my job. Until I left, I spent more time worrying about if I looked like I wasn't working.
Next company was wide open. Sure I had AIM open, bounced ideas off some techs I knew on IRC once in a while, but the pressure was off and I got more done.
{} ------ When I think of a good sig, I'll put it here
But lets be real, most jobs don't let you bring your tv to work, why should they give you full access to a medium that has 100X the content of a standard cable. The internet = ( videogames, tv, +everything ) wrapped up in a neat little package. It definitely should be restricted. I won't want to work for a place that does it though.
Are better off without them.
As an integrator, VAR, developer, security consultant, and chief cook and bottle washer for many firms, I advise my clientele with respect to their internet connectivity, and the expense and disbursement of the same. Given the strict liabilities of corporations, it is unfeasible to permit unrestricted access. Furthermore, I don't find it surprising that this discussion is coming from Redmond, which offers one of the most difficult Operating Systems on the market, in that it's increasingly difficult to secure Windows of any description and therefore it's probably just more cost effective to give free reign than it is attempt to limit the corporate liabilities presented by the deployment of M$ products.
It should also be painfully obvious that internet access is not free, but must be paid for by the corporation, and unfettered access in ANY environment could prove unnecessarily costly. In these difficult economic times the onus is on upper management to ensure that the operation of the company is streamlined in such a way as to ensure both maximum productivity and profitability.
In the Canada there are PIPEDA legislative restrictions in place that must be met with respect to user/customer privacy, and as such, in even a well considered M$ environment, it is not possible to grant unrestricted internet access and comply with the rules. Granted it may be possible to provide a properly cordoned internet access, but this should only be available to employees on their break times.
As the by-line suggests, productivity is still the bottom line, and employees (digital natives or any other such ludicrous monicker) should not be the defining force behind internet access policy. It is widely held that a measured approach is preferable. One that can enable all stakeholders without potentially compromising any corporate/consumer data, and maintain operational efficiency to ensure that at the end of the month the company can still afford to honour the paycheques they pump out.
if I claimed I was emperor just because some watery tart lobbed a scimitar at me they'd put me away!
Instead of monitoring what sites people go to and blocking certain ones, why not allow all sites and try to monitor the amount of time that people are spending on "personal" web sites? Relatively small amounts of time should be permitted, so people won't feel repressed. Moreover, you'll also be able to tell if someone is abusing the privilege, and to discipline him or her appropriately.
Most people in this thread are completely missing the point that has been made in the original article. I attribute this to one of two things:
1.
The comments that have risen to the surface here have been made primarily by Digital Immigrants who have learned to adapt to their technological surroundings but have never and probably never will completely integrate those technologies with their minds. You may have a plethora of gadgets and you may administer hundreds of boxes, that does not make you a digital native.
Digital natives have been born in and have grown up in an environment where their every action, every thought has been melded with technology. Instantaneous rich interactive communication is a way of life for them and goes to their very core.
Taking a cell phone away from a teenage girl may not be physical abuse, but mentally it most certainly is. It is tantamount to locking someone into an isolation cell or taking away their faculty of speech. Not as harsh as both those conditions, but lacking the reference material, certainly it is perceived in that way.
I am a knowledge worker and I use digital technology to search, find, process, refine and publish knowledge. I need free internet access to be able to give my best and work to my peak. Not being able to IM restricts the people whose knowledge I can benefit from and with whom I can forge relations. Being behind a firewall where I can't FTP, SSH or use POP only worsens the situation and I feel crippled everyday I have to plug my laptop in at work. I resent being there any longer than I absolutely have to.
Yes, I don't need these services to do my day to day work. But to be able to express myself to the fullest and be a complete individual I most certainly do. That raises the question, has my employer hired me for the person that I am and my needs for communication or to be just another worker drone in his cubicle.
Employers would best take a page out of the Chie Happiness Officers book and take it to heart: http://www.positivesharing.com/
2.
A Design Anthropologist's views may strike most people at Slashdot a bit odd but it probably is because she is talking with people and about people. The notions she distills are very valid and interesting if you are making systems aimed at people.
It is the people, stupid! And to the right decisions in high level design companies would be smart to get more input from the humanities.
-- Alper
we restrict Internet access, but in a smart way. All parts of the Internet are available before work, after work, during breaks, and during lunch. The firewall restricts access to many sites at other times. However, the firewall shuts off 15 minutes before any break starts and kicks in 15 minutes after the break is over. So employees know it's not allowed to waste time online during work hours, but they still have a sense of responsibility about it. If you're 15 minutes into work time and the connection craps out on certain sites, you know you've broken the rules. It isn't usually a problem.
I am a little surprised. I don't think I saw anyone admit that they recognize their own surfing habits cost them. It seems many recognize "other" people can have issues with it.
Full unfettered access destroys my productivity at times. I follow a thought and boom an hour has gone by. I would definitely prefer to be subject to whitelisting/blacklisting. First things to block: Slashdot and digg of course.
I know I would be doing a much better job if aimless surfing could be eliminated. But it is just so easy to click a link and read stuff, or comment on stories on slashdot. Our buisness communication depends heavily on our internal web so we all have contstant connectivity and at times external access can be handy, but I would be 100% in favor of restrictions.
I really think productivity would go up quite a bit. Most of my friends all admit to surfing too much on the job (we are all techies).
I am an info junky and always have been, even before getting Fidonet, I used to read tons of magazines about technology/science etc. In an environment with unfettered access is like a kid in a Candy store. Look: Shiny new Mazda roadster with retractable hardtop, planets 8, 9, 12 or 50?, New rumored Canon 400D DSLR, New ATI Radeons (damn I got sidetracked while writing this to read about new Radeon). You get the idea.
So Yes please, bring on the filtering. Some of us just can't handle unlimited access to information.
I used to work for a company that had pretty serious Internet filters, and they monitored the Internet access at the company in real-time. It was not unknown to get a call from the people monitoring security at the company if they noticed something funky going on your computer. They had good reason though...the former management team had been found in some serious ethics violations costing the company hundreds of millions of dollars and almost landed the execs in jail.
I really had no problem with the "normal" filters they had on most of the time, but once in a while, they put the Uber-Super-Anal filters on that would restrict your access to basically read-only Internet. During these "outages" you couldn't go to any online shops, incl. tech bookstores like Bookpool.com (Amazon.com was blocked as well). Some tech resources were also restricted for some reason. The "super siikrit probations" were never announced in advance, nor were we told when they ended. You just noticed, all of a sudden, that half the Internet is gone. And then hours or days later, it was back.
It was definitely one of the reasons why I quit that job.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
Why don't they just ban Internet Explorer and that problem goes away? Seems like if you had a particular phone model that would allow external callers to crash your PBX that you would switch phones.
I saw that done years ago at a major Hollywood animation studio. The internal network, used for feature animation, was completely isolated from the outside. The external machines were set up as kiosks, and unconnected from anything else. But this was in 1998.
By 2002, they weren't doing that any more. They'd switched from SGI to Windows, and Windows needs to talk to the mothership in Redmond.
The fucking Generation Y-ers need a reality check. It's NOT your fucking network assholes. It's your employer's. And if they say you can't hit Fark during the day, then so be it. If you want that kind of access, then get a certification in networking and work your way up the ladder to being in the network group of your IT department. Then you can do whatever you want as long as you don't get caught. If you're the sort who didn't go into IT, then suck it up jackwad. And keep in mind it's a matter of compromise. You can either have the corner office in a skyscraper and controlled internet access, or you can have unrestricted access and live in the basement with the janitors. You can't have both if you don't work for a company that isn't in the technology business.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I can't recall the last employer I had that didn't indiscriminately block long distance calls without the keying in of a personal code that would tie the person making the call to the call.
That's insanity. I can't envision an employer doing that. I'd certainly quit. Not because I make long distance calls, but because I wouldn't want to work for anybody so insane.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Making phone calls, viewing websites, Instant messaging, and emailing your friends all day at work are not all the same thing anymore. Not when a business can be held liable for their employees actions. Case in point the Article here: http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_cas e417.cfm I have every right to protect my business from this type of thing even if it means limiting what my employee's do online. If the employee doesn't see it my way, then move on, I'm sure I will find a more mature adult out there that wants your job. BTW I never have seen a job that allowed an employee free access to call anyone they felt like at any time they wanted too. Give me a break people. You are at work too work, not to make phone calls to all your girlfriends / boyfriends. If they can stop the frivolous law suits against businesses that try to be nice to their employees then I say it's fine to go online, as long as what your doing online is legal. But don't hold a grudge against a employer because you can't get to your favorite porn site. Your employer has more to worry about than you "getting off". Give me a break people.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
At the moment we depend on our workstations to access the Internet, so the company we work for has total control. They can spy on you, restrict you etc etc. But a few years from now, Wimax, or something like it will allow cheap Internet access from anywhere at any time. You wont even need to used your workstation for doing anything personal. You will be able to use your Wimax enabled PDA, which will probably double as a phone using some VOIP client like Skype. You will have totally private Internet access at any time wherever you are. (Technically speaking we can do some of this now with our mobiles, but Internet access is still way to expensive)
"For example, today's children are likely to be much better multi-taskers. "
Unfortunately that idea was shot down by scientists. It's more likely that today's children can maintain the illusion better than adults.
As I see it's not what employers are banning it's the way and the fact that thye do at all. If a person has clearly defined responsibiliites and they are living up to those responsibilites and not doing things that cause harm to the company like surfing porn which can bring law suites etc then leave the person alone to do the job they are hired to do. If they are not doing what they are being paid for then discipline and termination is in order. It's the bean counter and middle management tirants that care about this minutia and it's they who need to do something more productive than hover and lose sleep over surfing habits. Stop treating people like commodities and show some respect.
Quit your damn whining and get back to work, you lazy S.O.B.!!!
(He says from his open Internet access at work)
Is this a joke? I thought the paycheck WAS the halfway meeting?
This seems quite hypocritical considering MS is well known for terminating employees based on intelligence gathered from employee browsing of even mainstream websites. Like most large organizations, MS is an amalgamation of fiefdoms and access to mainstream content considered offensive to a manager is often the basis for rumor dissemination campaigns that ultimately lead to termination. Reading a story on Al-Jazeera is certain to lead to the termination of a MS employee, regardless of how moderate he or she behaves publicly.
A best-selling book titled The Unwanted Gaze documented several cases of terminaton by MS of employees based on web access. One was a female manager who used a singles dating site. All sued and got cash.
If the "higher ups" refused to do so, I would call them up in the middle of the night the next time the problem occured and inform them that they have some work to do.
Me calling Boss: Hi, Boss, the box crashed again, full of viruses. I tell you, we must upgrade it to Linux!
Boss: Ok, smart guy, now tell me how our custom universal resource planning database for civil works is going to work on Linux, given that it uses every single Windows API that there is?
Me: Well... we can always try Wine, it's in alpha now, and it can run Notepad already, and even some IE! It may work for us if we are lucky, then we don't need to rewrite that monstrosity of the database and spend another $15,000,000 and five years...
Boss: I thought you were not supposed to be stupid! You are fired. Good night.
What is a "Design Anthropologist" anyway?
Finally, since you clearly have no idea what you are talking about, you should definately STFU, especially when you are poking your nose in where it doesn't belong. (Hint: get a clue about Wine, etc.)
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
I sure wish that employers were so beating down my door that I could afford to make Internet access a criterion in my decision on whether to accept a job.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
I definitely can ditto that. I've got a procrastination streak and an information addiction streak, and combined, it makes me feel ridiculous. Yes, I do want to work on things, but once I look something up on Wikipedia, I spend no less than an hour reading through tons of interlinked articles. It's been weeks since I went to bed before 3, and what am I reading about? Everything: Chuck E Cheese, voice actors, history of the Lebanon-Israel conflicts, Miss America disputes, sci-fi novels, post-apocolyptic fiction, "posture" pictures, freemasonry, British sitcoms. You name it, I've probably read a handful of WP articles within a degree of separation. If only I could find the job where this was useful : )
My solution was to set up an Apache-SSL server on one of my machines, hook a CGI proxy software into it, and run an SSH server on a high port. That then allows me to browse the web and still get into my systems at work. Avoiding the stupidity of remote evesdropping is also alleviated by plugging my laptop into the network and faking to the Windows domain controller.
I'll admit that there can be times where I'll read political news or technical documents for half of the day. However, I do the work of at least three people and the areas I'm responsible for are covered. Personally, I'm not going to feel bad about following politics while at the office (I'm salaried BTW, so I'm basically on the clock 24x7). Being knowledgable about what's going on in your country is much more important in my opinion than making sure you're doing productive work for an employer at every possible moment.
Sounds like you've bought into the factory/robot mentality.
Working in a factory or in telephone support is different from working in a job which requires thinking, creativity, and problem-solving. People can't invent new solutions for things for 8 hours straight, with only a rigidly-timed lunch break. Our brains don't work like that.
Sure, if your job is flipping burgers and refilling soft drinks, it doesn't take much brain power to do that, and there's no reason to be goofing off on the job. Just turn your brain off and follow the routine, day in and day out. But if you're trying to devise creative solutions to complex problems, this simply isn't going to happen according to a rigid plan, timed to the minute.
Time spent surfing the web costs the company money, period. Most obviously, it keeps the user from being productive more often than not. If a user is productive for only two hours during the day, then they should only work two hours of the day, and only be paid two hours of the day. Plus, you also have to pay a bill for those pipes going out to the Internet. We've got two DS3s out to the Internet, and they're not particularly cheap. Plus, we've got ~750 frame-relay pvcs, ~200 DSL connections, a few hundred dial up accounts, and users accessing our customers' networks to gain connectivity to our WAN across North America. All of these connections cost us $TEXAS bux at the end of the day. Add on to that the cost of a network engineer or network operations analyst's time spent servicing issues directly related to Internet use. I could not care less what Todd in Topeka is looking at on the Internet, but if he's eating up the majority of bandwidth at his remote site, that is impeding the productivity of other users on that shared WAN connection. Then those other users on that WAN connection will complain, which will cause them to log an issue with our service desk, eventually it will get escalated and the aforementioned engineer or operations analyst will need to research why the remote office is experiencing slowness. There are a lot of things I would rather spend my time doing than give lectures to end users on how to behave on a small, very expensive WAN connection. I understand there can be benefits to having Internet access to view informational resources online, and that's fine, but when people are streaming media, or looking at flash-based websites, or downloading linux cd images on 128k or 256k circuits, they are affecting the productivity of their co-workers as well, in a negative fashion. Also, anybody defending the comparison of phone use to Internet as was mentioned in the beginning of the discussion is out of their mind. The less secure you keep an Internet connection, the easier it is for an outsider to break in and access anything touching your network. Last I checked, unless you're reading social security numbers or credit card numbers over the phone, a personal call to the girlfriend is not going to be all that compromising to a company's secure records. Just because having unrestricted access to the Internet makes you happy, does not mean it is justifiable in a business environment.
(With apologies to the great digerati Senator Stevens ;)
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
I'm a 'computer native' finding myself more and more amongst 'computer immigrants'. As far as I consider it, most of you will be gone again when AOL goes out of business. Just a blip on the radar.
Having worked for a huge multinational bank, I can see limiting net access for security reasons. We had enough thieves robbing the place blind already, we didn't need to give them the ability to cut and paste the credit-card numbers database directly onto craiglist. In cases where employee theft of tangible company assets (I don't mean Internet resources, I mean stock-in-trade) is not a concern, I would consider Internet access not only a valuable perk but an outright necessity.
I have been tasked with setting up internet restrictions at a clients request. The client suspects that employess are spending inordinate amounts of time casually surfing the web and ignoring important business functions. I would prefer not to do this and feel that other methods would be more successful and rewarding. Like explaining to the users what the expectations are when on the job and that one should exercise some restraint when it comes to personal computer use at ones place of employ.
The first thing I've done is log all user web activity, break it down by workstation and monitor that usage. I am also archiving that data for future reference. After three weeks of logging what I find is that on average an employee spends about 1.5 hours out of an 8 hour day on the internet non-business related. Some employees are spending as much as 4 to 6 hours out of an 8 hour day using the computers for personal web surfing and game play. This is about 10% of the work force.
Clearly there are issues here. My discussion with management indicate that some amount is acceptable. My opinion is that employess should have work safe free reign during lunch periods and breaks and that may add up to an hour per day. Management is generally agreeable as long as the work gets done. The problem therefore is the 10% who will be given opportunity to fall in line at this place of employ or the unemployment office, their choice. I feel this is reasonable.
So for the time being we will monitor and not restrict. If we have to restrict, then business related web sites will be on a white list and all else will be blocked. If this is unacceptable to employees then they are free to leave.
This particular employer pays well and the working conditions are very good but this is not a day care center for malcontents. Employees are expected to be productive which is why they were hired and paid.
I'm left to wonder how it can come to be that employees expect to be paid full time hours for part time work or that unfettered internet access is some kind of right. If I can accomplish anything here it will be to moderate the inclination of management to opt for the heavy handed solution but on the other side I also see their point and employees must moderate their behaviour to levels found reasonable and acceptable. By and large the greater offenders will simply be eliminated leaving the lesser problem and hopefully we can stop there.
But it is also true that computer usage monitors, logging and archiving will continue perpetually. Most people don't like being monitored and we have seen a slight amount of turnover due to this. If we have to take more extreme measures we also expect another wave of turnover but replacements are waiting in the wings and should we come to that point I will be working with management to implement the restrictions in such a manner that employee turnover is more readily managed.
The bottom line here is profits and paychecks. If an employee wants to spend hours per day playing games or casually surfing the internet I suggest they do so in the comfort and privacy of their own home.
What's this about a new Canon 400D DSLR?
Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
So we all have to suffer for your lack of discipline. That's fair.
Why not just install your own filter?
Dear Employee
Your right of course but if I catch you habitually fucking off, I'm going to can your ass!
The Boss
Apparently the younger generation just popped out of thier mother's vagina and started "texting" other newborns right away!?
This was always something I took into consideration when evaluating job prospects. The restrictions on Internet use aren't that big a deal on their own, but it sends the signal that the company does not trust me with all of the tools I may need to use on the job (Most of my positions were in IT).
It was up temporarily on the Canon china site.
0 0d-rebel-xti/
350d replacment:
10MP (still 1.6 crop)
vibrating sensor to shake off dust.
New Lenses: 50mm F1.2 and new 70-200 IS F4 .
http://www.infodigitalcamera.com/blog/242/canon-4
This is actually the best solution I've seen. It will only work, however, if those who abuse those communal machines are quickly and publicly fired.
I think, well hope, that making the machines highly visibles helps to prevent it from getting that bad. Ideally peer pressure would encourage the slackers to mend their evils ways, the peers don't want to have to pull the slacker's weight. Also, the fear of being discovered to be a slacker may improve the behavior.
"So we all have to suffer for your lack of discipline. That's fair.
Why not just install your own filter?"
How can a filter that I control be effective, given that I lack disipline?
So do the digital natives do a DigitalNativeDance?
I currently have all non-work related internet access shut off in my company. This is not because I wish to, or because management is paranoid or whatnot. It's becuase of the Payment Card Industry Cardholder Information Security Program. It states that if any company that accepts/processes/stores/handles credit card information HAS to lock down interent access. Failure to comply with this program could lead to losing your merchant account or fines of up to %$500,000 per instance of fraudulent credit card use. I would love to let my employee's check the news/e-mail/slashdot, but unless this regulation is modified or done away with completely, I can't afford to take the chance. For more info on this see www.visa.com/cisp. BTW, my company actually does enough credit card volume that we have to have security audits, even though we've never had an instance of fraud. Open internet access would fail me on the audits.
Chester and Lester are your employees. What Chester does in 8 hours Lester can do in 2 hours and at the same level of quality, but Lester can work only for 2 hours per day. I take it you would pay both employees the same rate per day, right? If so, that was Brushfireb's point. And I agree with your point that it's a good idea for Lester to "look busy" in order to maintain group morale.
Filter yourself. Take some responsibility for your own actions. If your productivity is affect, not only does your company suffer but so does your own career. Some of us can handle internet access and still get our jobs done. I don't see why every other employee you work with should be filtered just because you have no self control.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Giving everyone unlimited internet access is like putting a TV on everyone's desk. Both dumb ideas. Clearly define roles and responsibilities and limit who does internet "research" as much as possible. Put the "internet PC" in a separate cubicle(s) and monitor who goes there and what they do. Give employees only the tools they need to do their well-defined tasks.
The company I'm at now monitors everything. If you look at a site they will probably have it blocked the following day. It's extremely annoying. Especially when I'm walking down the aisle noticing everyone shopping for their free wallpaper at some adware infested site that is permissible. As a native I am restless. They block my proxy sites too, wah. I'd never quit over it though these people crying should try working sometime. I wish I could be so spoiled as to quit over surfing the internet. :)
"I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivian."
What about those people who can only work in their home town because they don't have the money to move? What about those people who use public transportation and thus cannot work in a town without adequate public transportation? Do these people deserve to starve?
I have "a degree in something besides basket-weaving." When CareerBuilder and Monster fail to help me find a job in my home town that uses my degree, I become frustrated. When the sites fail to help me find a job in my home town that pays enough to help me save up to move to a different city that is more likely to have jobs that use my degree, I become more frustrated. What am I missing?
As technology progresses, the border between health necessities and health luxuries does not remain constant, especially when one takes into account that mental health requires appropriate stimulation.
In this period of jobless growth in many parts of the United States, do all towns allow such freedom without dropping below a reasonable subsistence income?
They are if I have not been able to find steady employment since graduating from university. I've had to work for $0.00 per hour at a military hospital for the last 18 months just to keep up the impression that I'm not a total slacker in case a position that pays more than minimum wage opens up in my town. How do you suggest that a university graduate climb out of negative net worth?
I want to learn "good general business skills". Do you have any suggestions as to ways for people with Asperger Syndrome to develop "good general business skills"?
Having had no steady job since college, how should I find the money to move out of the State of Indiana?
I worked for one employer recently. They even blocked access to the Microsoft website, because they didn't want us downloading our own updates. *THEY* decided what we should have. If we wanted to use an e-mail web site, we had to call up and get a 15 minute certificate. Plus, everything we did look at was logged.
I did cut down on the fun factor, but it also did cut down on goofing off. Can always surf at home. Mightn't work for a small company or an upstart, who will work far harder than they goof of - and everyone needs to stretch their mind now and again. But when a company gets big enough and you get the clockpunchers its a different matter. People will happily goof off all day.
Needless to say anyone dumb enough to access p0rn or warez at work should be sacked anyway.
That said, personally I'd rather work for a small company that trusts me. Of course, I never was a clockpuncher. So I guess what the article says is true. If you want clockpunchers, censor your net access.
Three words: Fort Wayne, Indiana. Five more: Asperger syndrome interferes with interviews.
B.Sc. computer science.
I live in my parents' proverbial basement.
Because I have no savings to back up a move to another town. How can I amass such a savings if I still have student loans to pay?
I've tried applying for decent professional jobs in other states, but I've always been turned down in favor of another candidate.
The obvious answer is for the company to filter *him* and only him. It isn't necessary to filter everyone else, and I don't think the poster's asking for that.
:)
I have heard of this being done, to a friend, and his productivity did go way up and he and the company are both pleased with the way his career's going. I believe he's not filtered any more.
I sympathise; I am self-employed as a freelancer/consultant, and I have the same problems of being an info-junkie procrastinator. I am a sponge for wikipedia entries etc. Give me a book, and I'll read it until it's finished without taking a break, even it's a 20 hour read. When I'm reading, I have barely any sense of passing time: I rationally understand time but don't _feel_ the time passing like a clock with a schedule.
On the positive side, it helps enormously with my work: I answer almost everything I'm asked that's work-related over quite diverse fields, usually on the spot, because I've read about it at some point. I solve problems quickly. I'm especially good at debugging and fixing systems that have others perplexed, and at interdisciplinary design.
But on the negative side, it's troublesome, and it means I never get enough sleep. I would welcome time-based filtering (for my own machines) in an office environment. Best would be something that lets me surf whenever I like/need (after all it is necessary, and a pleasure), but warns me then cuts me off if I spend too much time doing that. But I enjoy the pleasures of freelancing far more than the constraints of a company office, and I more than make up for my time/attention non-discipline in other ways.
And as the poster who asked for filtering says: A filter _I_ control is not effective. Sure, it makes sense. But it is not effective. No more than making myself tea in the morning is as effective as having someone else bring me a cup, even though the chemicals are the same
Still, the kind of filter I described seems like the sort of thing I should try... Anyone know of such software - that allows network access all the time, but applies useful feedback to help me govern myself?
-- Jamie
I think you need to re-read my post. What you said is exactly what I said.
i work for a school. we filter pages due to the traffic strain in bandwidth and not through censhorship. our philosophy is use but don't abuse. internet is not free and we pay money for it. we can charge everybody (tuition) extremely high rates to be able to run probably 10ge of internet access to our site to satisfy everyone's download and streaming requirements. but of course, who would pay such an expensive fee for internet only.
lately, the speed has been slowing down to a point that it is like viewing sites in a dial-up internet access (typical downloads only clock at 5kbytes/s). well guess who is at the 2nd to the top (the top being almost always windowsupdate?) youtube. the others are usually from yahoo but we have akamai colocated servers so much of it is cached (for yahoo and windowsupdate.) we filtered youtube and the speed improved tremendously to around 40kbytes/s downloads.
well my point is, assuming filtering is not because of security measures, i will really recommend that employees be charged with use of resource intensive sites that are not work related. companies will deduct the internet usage charges from their salary (of course prices will be higher than regular broadband since the bandwidth is "guaranteed".) let see if they would use it that much.
i would want to add 2nd and 3rd.
second, some filtering can be done because of legal issues. in the news that i've seen lately, violation of laws penalizes the company more and may not affect the employee. so if someone were to sue company x, then its expenses will come from the company. if only it was legal, companies will put the burden on the people who violated it and all money involved. so the person will probably have sold his soul and work every day of his life paying for the violations he made (and will probably not pay everything till death.) i believe, everybody will be extremely careful and probably do self filtering. this is probably much cheaper and effective i believe. they may even ask the company to filter traffic for them.
(please correct this argument if it is flawed and i ended it in ?) third, some filtering can be countered as against free speech. i am not sure but isn't the right of having a home, food to eat, clean water all part of basic rights as with free speech? given the scenario of internet usage in the company, is it ok to say that giving them uncensored internet access because they have the right to free speed would tantamount to the company having to give them free food, free housing, and other basic necessities? the counter argument also goes that if you are not required to give free food, free housing, etc, then giving free internet access due to free speech reasons is not necessary?
from the article, young people will not want to work for those. they probably should start their own company instead of working for one so they can set the rules (like allowing for porn downloads during work and downloading all the malware and viruses to the employees' heart content.) they will probably do some filtering after. anyway, most company these days will probably have some filtering done due to the first and more on the second.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
The article talks a lot about the effect of personal internet use on morale, but doesn't talk about how excessive filtering can affect productivity.
In my last job, I worked at various schools throughout the city of Sakai, Osaka. If you read my comments history, you'll probably notice that I talk about that a lot. Anyway, Sakai recently instituted a massive internet filter that all the schools had to go through (if they don't want to pay for it all out of their regular budget). This filter blocks any and all "non-work-related" internet use. This includes e-mail, message boards, shopping, adult-related content, and sites about network security ("cyber crime"). It even went so far as to block Google Image Search, probably because it could be used to find pornographic images.
I rarely was trying to do anything not related to work when that familiar "i-filter" logo came up. Maybe I was in a rut and looking for lesson ideas. Maybe I was trying to get to that piece of information I had in my e-mail box. Maybe I was trying to figure out how to get around Tweak UI to fix the virus that had infected every single computer on the network. Usually, I was just trying to get entertaining or informative images to put on my lesson handouts.
The big problem with forbidding general internet use is that it all too often blocks the tools necessary to get work done. In my situation, I ended up having to wait to go home to find the stuff that I needed for class the next day, using my own unpaid time, and my own uncompensated printer ink. You know something's wrong when employees have to do overtime because of your restrictions.
You missed the AC he was responding to.
I'm a techie geek, and work for a UK government department IT contractor. The government department isn't allowed any Internet access at all, and recently, we've been denied too. Aside from the obvious problems of not being able to look up things that are required for your job (which is incredibly frustrating, and will probably see me leaving very soon), there's been an interesting side effect.
The day the ban was enforced (a friday), pretty much the entire office emptied for the afternoon - far more comprehensively than would normally occur on a friday. Since then, a gang of us frequently disppaear for pub lunches, or even just pop out for a quick beer. In short, since the ban, I'd suggest that productivity hasn't gone up at all, and in truth is probably down. My personal loyalty to the place is at a minimum, and as right now my work is sporadic, in those down periods, I'm bored out of my mind.
I can't talk about all walks of life, but for technical people, no access to the Internet (or even heavily filtered access) is completely counterproductive.
So you're saying that you intellectual 'elite' should be able to goof off during the day reading Slashdot and playing solitaire, whilst us underclasses should have to work eight hours solid?
And people wonder why geeks are unpopular.
Of all the writers, politicians, and others who have ripped off the originator of the "digital native" and "digital immigrant" labels and concepts, Marc Prensky , someone calling herself an anthropologist should at least credit the spark of a light she's basking in.
Get Kirah's name right yes, but worse: the /. summary, TFA AKA ninemsn and Microsoft, and myriad others before them have either been unaware of Prensky or have themselves enjoyed a ride without crediting him and his relative wit.
Here is the original source from Prensky. It's not as if he's a nobody, he has a Harvard MBA and a Masters in Teaching from Yale where I suppose he made a few connections, and while not a household name he's successful in tech business and philanthropy.
In 2005 Rupert Murdoch spoke to the American Society of Newspaper Editors , after which Murdoch was widely credited with the "digital native, digital immigrant" observation and phrases. To pick an Australian example of subsequent error in which the text of Murdoch's speech is also posted, see "The Challenge Of Becoming A True Digital Native: Rupert Murdoch."
Thanks to Mr. Murdoch's blockbuster status, not only speciality sites, but sites often used for citation like About.com have credited Murdoch for posterity, as in this article targeting educators which asks, in a poll and an associated essay, "Are You A Digital Native Or Digital Immigrant?"
Even Apple, who took Prensky's idea and ran with it, credits Ian Jukes and Anita Dosaj of The InfoSavvy Group, not Prensky!
At least someone has it right, if for the next few minutes, incompletely so.
BG
Bees are social animals. They don't long for free internet access, they don't wander off their path, they don't email their hives secrets to another hive nor do they program spyware in order to gain a botnet to send spam to other hives. In fact, you even don't have to tell them what to do: they know by themselves. Also, the Queen Bee is not a boss in any sense; she work as hard as a drone, perhaps more, and they only take care so well of her because there is a single one - so she' s valuable.
We humans, as much as we like to call ourselves "social beings", are in fact gregarious. We like to be next to each other and we depend on others to live and get things done. But deep inside -perhaps not so deep - we are selfish and resist to authority. We are more like a pack of wolves than a bee hive.
Diclaimer: IINABOP.
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
But if the companies of most of the posters on here were really that restrictive, they, well wouldn't be posting on here (I know some time zones are past work hours, but the majority aren't).
I have been in that position, actually. I worked in schools, and the teachers etc were constantly getting me to add sites to the block-list. In the education world or the corporate one, the solution for viewing innappropriate sites should be the same: punish the offenders. If a kid is viewing naked pictures on deviantart (which are all of what, 2% of the content), it's not a reason to block the whole damn site and thus deprive actual artistic-minded students from using it. By the same token, if Bob in animal development spends 50% of his worktime on myspace and a dozen other sites, thus getting little work done, we should be dealing directly with Bob rather than trying to track down all the sites he visits and filter them.
The internet is constantly coming up with new ways to waste time or see inappropriate things, the answer is not so much filtering as it is dealing with the individuals waste time looking for said material (with some filter for the sites that regularly sneak through, banner-blocking, etc).
I'm a sysadmin, and I can't count the number of times a manager has come up to me and brought this up as a suggestion.
There are a billion reasons to filter, and a billion reasons not to. It all comes down to risk mitigation and employee trust. What are the risks of data loss due to a virus? Or a harassment suit? How much do you trust your employees? Are you in a position where you can even make that call? (gov't work tends to be in a position where their decisions are made for them.)
Myself, there have been many instances where having unfettered internet made my job easier. Discounting the various websites I'll read to keep abreast of technology:
1) Having the ability to SSH/X into another machine outside your network to troubleshoot network issues is invaluable. It's saved my bacon a few times.
2) Having your network of professional friends on tap via IM. I can't count the times I've been asked to research something that one of them knows backwards and forwards.
Most importantly -
3) The internet is my surrogate brain. I use it often for troubleshooting. Someone out there has invariably dealt with something similar to what I've dealt with, and posted either musings that point me in the right direction, or a downright fix. I *could not* do my job as effectively if I was prevented access to the myriad of sites providing this information.
Employers may face liability for connectivity addiction
Researchers at Rutgers, Gale Porter, along with study co-authors David Vance and Nada Kakabadse, concludes that employers may be legally liable for creating an environment in which workers may become addicted to technology. "Employers rightfully provide programs to help workers with chemical or substance addictions. Addiction to technology can be equally damaging to the mental health of the worker," states Porter, an associate professor of management at the school