Reporting on Your Employees' Internet Access?

kooky45 asks: "My team has recently installed content filters for my company which restrict the web sites that employees can visit. It also logs the sites they do visit; not whole URLs, just the site domain names. This has been useful for a couple of disciplinary investigations of employees suspected of wrongdoing. However, word has got round to some managers that this capability exists. They are starting to ask my team to provide lists of sites that their team members have accessed over the past few weeks, claiming they are suspicious of time wasting on the Internet and need proof. We're pushing back because of privacy concerns but the pressure is building on us. We have no experience in this area, and I'd like to ask Slashdot how other companies handle this, what the important considerations are, and where it could all go wrong?"

Comments

Legal expectations of privacy....

[Snowtide]

Being a tech support monkey at both a university and a private business I have been told by the lawyers at both places there is little or no expectation of privacy using a businesses equipment. They pay for it and pay you to use it for their benefit, not yours. Universities are often trickier with the whole academic freedom bit and the often continuous political games. We have had the best results with the policy described by a previous poster. Accept requests for those records from only one or two people of authority. The head of HR for instance, it takes the load off the IT department and helps limit the number of requests. People will hassle It to try to get that information for all kinds of petty reasons, but HR controls reviews and paychecks, it often makes people think twice before asking for things.

Thank God my bosses believe me when I describe Slashdot as a tech reference site and I am in charge of any network monitoring we might do.
:)

How much is it worth?

[Kadin2048]

I was reading an article a while back about how more and more employees are coming to either expect, or desire as a perk, unfettered internet access.

I wonder if anyone has done a study or survey of how much employees value their internet access, and what kind of pay cut they'd be willing to take for it, or what kind of pay bump they would require to move to a company that didn't offer it.

Right now it might seem like a minor issue -- in many tech fields, there are enough candidates that employers can dictate terms to their employees, and employees are sufficiently discouraged by the thought of finding a new job, that they won't tell them to suck eggs and walk away. However, in a tighter market this might not be the case. I could easily see a situation where a company might decide that it's cheaper to offer unfettered internet access (and swallow the cost of the productivity hit) rather than pay extra in order to recruit and retain people who are willing to work under more limited conditions.

I've thought about what it's worth to me, and I think I would probably accept working in a secure area (where there's no public net access) for about a 5% pay increase; any less than that, and I'd probably say no. If they just started blocking web traffic tomorrow in my current position, I probably wouldn't quit immediately, but it would certainly factor into my list of things that I don't particularly like. At some point when that list got long enough, I'd find another job.

Everything's a trade-off, both from the employer's perspective and the employee's.