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.
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.