Slashdot Mirror
One-Third of Employees Violate Company IT Policies
BaCa writes with a link indicating that a survey of white collar US workers shows that something like a third of all employees break IT policies. Of those, almost a sixth actually used P2P technologies from their work PCs. Overall, the survey indicates workers aren't overly concerned about any kind of security: "The telephone survey found that 65% of white-collar professionals are either not very concerned or not concerned at all about their privacy when using a workplace computer. A surprising 63% are not very concerned or are not concerned at all about the security of their information while at work. Additionally, most employees have the misconception that these behaviors pose little to no risk to their companies."
I'm guessing a more accurate headline would be: One-Third of Employees Admit to Violating Company IT Policies
The rest just didn't let on - because there is no way the number is that low. Or they didn't outright lie, they just didn't even know they had violated company policies.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Insert self-referential sig here.
Blacklists=>Proxies
Traffic filters=>TOR
etc. etc.
But the real problems are still caused by moron employees who double click on an attachment they got via email. Just happened again last week. The problem isn't people who don't adhere to policies, it's employees who don't have a clue.
And what's wrong with reading Slashdot while you're slacking off with a coffee for a couple of minutes? I'd consider an employer a slave driver if they have a problem with that.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
What I've noticed more of is that there's the "Company IT Policy" (tm) and the actual acceptable use policy. On paper you're not allowed to put any personal files on the computer, browse any non-work-related sites, or use a messenger client. In reality, you can bring in your own music or any work-related programs as long as you take the flak for illegal things, browse sites but only for a reasonable amount of time, and the same for messenger.
If you are reading this thread at work, you're probably violating the policy as well. Has anybody actually read the employee handbooks given out on your first day of work? I have never worked for a company where IT stuff did not violate policies to a greater degree. Sure, soccer mom / accountant Jane may look at the news site or shop at gap.com during work hours, but Billy, the director or IT, can run as many P2P applications from the QA lab. I have constantly heard IT engineers bragging about yet another wonderful Quake 3 lunch. It is nothing wrong to have some fun at work, but ordering extra-beefy hardware only for specific individuals so they can play Quake may not sit right with a CFO. What about all that licensed software that magically ends up being installed at home? The about box reads that it is licensed to Some Company while it is being used for personal purposes. Things like this happen all the time. Hell, I had a co-worker who did not mind browsing pr0n and personals online at work. He even bragged about it. Noticed how I stated things in the past tense :)
Stupid policies make people break the laws. Just like teenagers love liquoring up despite the fact that it is illegal, white collar professionals like their news sites and forums. There is nothing you can do about it. In fact, if I were a boss, I would encourage people to relax and take breaks once in a while. I seriously see no harm if Johnny-work-all-night-to-meet-deadline takes 10 minutes and reads his Slashdot. As long as work is getting done, who gives a shit about what people do when they have a spare minute.
So most people realize, on some level, that the purpose of many of these rules is to make the people administering the network feel safer? For example, if you a company is sued by the RIAA/MPAA on the basis of someone on their network downloading music/movies illegally, they would have the protection of that being against their policies, so they can either fire that person for violating the policies, or pass on the lawsuit (for example, suing that person in turn). Thus, if you know what you are doing, it doesn't matter if it is against the rules unless attention is drawn to it - and unless it is harmful, the worst that would happen is probably a slap on the wrist, and perhaps not even that.
Everything is subjective.
You really have no grasp on reality, do you?
You think virus protection protects your net work? You missed the entire point. Then you followed it up with a broken car analogy.
Perhaps you should try understanding what you do for a living instead of doing whatever some book and a whole bunch of marketing literature told you to do.
I check in on my machines and make sure they are working. I protect my networks, and make sure that if they *do* get infected they're not going to infect *your* network.
Judging by your comment, on the other hand, you merely install security-blanket style security software on your systems and think that makes you "responsible".
Users have no remorse because they are given zero responsibility. Why should they care if they fuck up your machines? You secured them. They're protected. They're both "safe" because of the protections, and completely disallowed from making any responsible decisions about their own machines, so they take zero responsibility.
You, sir, are the cause of your own user-troubles.
It's really quite simple - a company is in it for the money. IT policies are there because they save money by not dealing with all sorts of crap. As long as you get your work done and don't create trouble for your coworkers, IT support, the legal department or anyone else most people are willing to overlook things. Note I said overlook, not back down. Don't challenge them or blatantly disregard them, or they have to come down hard on you to make sure everyone knows who has the final say. You have to convince them you're not what I'd call "dangerously competent" - skilled enough to mess around a lot, clueless enough to fuck it all up.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Not every IT person is gutsy enough to stand up and say "no fucking way".
Not every IT person should. IT is a service industry. They need to make sure they are providing the service that is actually desired.
Downloading torrents is a pig on bandwidth, but unless bandwidth is cramped. So what?
Downloading from external email accounts may carry greater virus risks, but they are going to pick up the messages when they get the laptop home anyway, so the machine comes in infected tomorrow instead of this afternoon. Or they'll pick it up through some webmail account somewhere that you haven't blocked. Or they'll hook up their laptop to their cellphone/pda.
Some IT departments should say "no fucking way". But in a lot of them IT is supposed to simply be providing a secure reliable functional network. That doesn't necessarily mean locking it it down so hard that its reliability reaches 5 9s, and its so secure even the users can't get in half the time, while functionality is at the bare minimum specified in an SLA, while IT pats itself on the back for a job well done.
Meanwhile half the staff have resorted to personal laptops/pdas and cellular data plans because they can't get email from important customers through the company mail server, and they can't access web content they need through the company network without jumping through stupid hoops each and every time... and IT just stands around saying "no fucking way".
For every PHB manager drawing up pointless re-org charts and misusing buzzwords, and marketing moron promsing perpetual motion machines and obsessing over what color they should be, there is an IT-admin somewhere very effectively ensuring his network is as hostile, unfriendly, and as unusable as possible to the people trying to use it.
Like I said, Some IT departments should say "no fucking way". Some environments and situations DO demand that. But many of them say that a hell of a lot more often than is remotely justifiable.