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."

50 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. I don't believe it by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hell, I'd be happy if 1/3 of our employees could even name all of the IT policies they were breaking.

    2. Re:I don't believe it by vertinox · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or they didn't outright lie, they just didn't even know they had violated company policies.

      I don't know how many times a conversation went like this:

      Me: Whats your user name?
      User: Its u2343 and my password is "bobspassword"!
      Me: Wait! ARRRRRGH! Don't tell me that! I'm not supposed to know your password, I just wanted your user name!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    3. Re:I don't believe it by Otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, if I'd been surveyed as to whether checking webmail is "risky", I'd also have said that it isn't. It's certainly not "risky" on the level that downloading and running some P2P application is; it's not even dangerous on the level that requiring 20 different, complex, constantly changed passwords is.

    4. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Believe it. IT breaks the most policies because they don't get in trouble and then blame non-IT personnel for doing what they do. I know I used to do it as IT. So don't blame employees. I wouldn't be surprised to see numbers on IT employees and have it show 99% break those policies they themselves enforce!

    5. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny


      Me: Wait! ARRRRRGH! Don't tell me that! I'm not supposed to know your password, I just wanted your user name!


      Me: Sigh. Please change your password. Please don't share your password with anyone, including IT staff.
      User: Ok, now I changed it to 'bobspassword2'.
      Me: ARRRRG!

    6. Re:I don't believe it by dnormant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What's sad where I work is it's the helpdesk and desktop administrators that are the worst. We have Websense to block the inappropriate web sites. Then they learned they could VPN in and that basically goes around Websense. Now they're tying up my firewall AND my VPN router.

      I already block all p2p, now I'm going to have to block music and video sites too. I don't care what is appropriate or what isn't, I'm tired of my boss asking me why the Interweb is slow.

      It sucks being the bad guy but I like my job.

    7. Re:I don't believe it by 33MHz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Couldn't agree more. As part of a development team that works in the same room as the IT team, I sometimes think about what they are doing on a daily basis, and the rules they enforce for the rest of us mere mortals seem completely pointless.

      I often need third-party libraries when I'm developing my software so I just get them off the Internet (sometimes virus checking them if I remember). If I followed the rules to the letter, I wouldn't download the libraries. But I don't follow them, so by using this software that nobody is "approving" I'm breaking the rules.

      But when did our security manager review the source code for Windows XP to make sure it's OK?

    8. Re:I don't believe it by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      it's not even dangerous on the level that requiring 20 different, complex, constantly changed passwords is.



      Personally, I find that this constand password actually *lowers* security. I would like to present myself as an example. We have to change our passwords to something with 3 of 4 items (CAPS,lowercase,numbers, and Special characters). We are required to change our password monthly. So instead of having a nice secure password like "jd%2MdEP!7rqA" that I can remember say... once a year.. I just do something like "Aotepad1"..next month "Botepad1"...next month "Cotepad1" so I can remember the damn thing. Each application requires it's own password, so requireing the average user to constantly change them is going to make them go with poor password choices instead of strong ones.

      Sometimes too much "security" is weaker security.
    9. Re:I don't believe it by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "It's easier to apologise than to get permission"

      -- From the late Rear Admiral Grace L. Hopper, founder of commercial computing and lead developer of the original COmmon Business-Oriented Language compiler.

      Sometimes you have to lead.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    10. Re:I don't believe it by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Couldn't agree more. As part of a development team that works in the same room as the IT team, I sometimes think about what they are doing on a daily basis, and the rules they enforce for the rest of us mere mortals seem completely pointless.
      That's because you are, as you say, mere mortals ;)

      I often need third-party libraries when I'm developing my software so I just get them off the Internet (sometimes virus checking them if I remember).
      And this is why I said you're a mere mortal. As a sysadmin it is imperitive that I not be forced to abide by the same restrictions as those underneath me. I must be able to run security audits against my network, I must be permitted to surf 'hacking' sites to be sure my anti virus scan's correctly and I must be able to download software as necessary. It is a part of my job, just like surfing pornography is the job of the digital market researcher I work with (now that's a cushy job, he's paid to stay on current trends - I'm an admin at a media and design company). However downloading libraries from some unknown source because they say they will do what you need is not necessarily safe, as you should well know. If your admin's are anything like mine they wouldn't care if you downloaded software from source forge, but if you download software from Mom's Friendly DLL Company that is a different story.

      If I followed the rules to the letter, I wouldn't download the libraries. But I don't follow them, so by using this software that nobody is "approving" I'm breaking the rules.
      Yes, technically you are, but that probably won't be a problem until you try and force that third party software onto production servers, which in my experience developers do after they have downloaded 3rd party libraries no one else has heard of. Yes this is why we have development machines, but it also falls to the IT team to be the ones to make the software work because of this library.

      But when did our security manager review the source code for Windows XP to make sure it's OK?
      Well hopefully he didn't implement XP as soon as it came out... at least waiting for a service pack and locking it down with Anti Virus and a decent firewall... if he didn't then that's probably a bad security manager you got there.

      Just for the record, I've been a developer, a hell desker and a sysadmin, so I know what the battlefield is like on both sides. No doubt others do to.
      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    11. Re:I don't believe it by GreyyGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. Between email retention policies, internet usage, and everything else, I would not be surprised if over 90% of people have violated them. Check your yahoo email at work? Violated company policy. Plugged in a USB drive or your iPod? Probably violated company policy. Installed non-approved software? Anything from IM software to Open Office to spyware checker to p2p software. Violated company policy. Sent your friend/spouse/significant other/family member and email from your work account? Violated company policy. Viewed something risque online at work? Even if not intended, that probably violated company policy.

      Silly to think of things that trivial can count, but there are reasonable reasons for them. The problem is that they are all general and not focused on if the person intended to violate them. I would not be surprised if one third of people knowingly violated their company policy.

    12. Re:I don't believe it by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I often need third-party libraries when I'm developing my software so I just get them off the Internet (sometimes virus checking them if I remember).

      In this case, virus checking is the least of your worries. If you're including those third-party libraries in your software, you need to be getting them approved by your legal department to make sure you're not creating huge copyright violations.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    13. Re:I don't believe it by COMON$ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hmmm, what about a fear of the unknown, the place I used to work posted a message saying the administrator has been alerted of the activity, nothing breeds fear like 1984 :)

      --
      CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
    14. Re:I don't believe it by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 2, Funny

      She certainly didn't get permission to inflict COBOL, yet I hear no apology.

    15. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who will be fixing your machine when you break it by installing some random third party software: you, or IT?

      That's what I thought. I can't imagine why IT might want to exercise some oversight over what you're installing.

    16. Re:I don't believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Considering they hire people that can't spell "third" ... ;-)

  2. of course by Vanden · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think most of us could've told them that without all of the silly research.

    Seriously though, for most people, unless they know there's a risk of being fired if they don't comply, chances are that they're not going to care about corporate IT policies. Most companies don't actual police them, so what benefit do they have in following them?

    While people should be responsible enough to do what their job requires, it falls back on the corporate IT folks to make sure their policies are enforced.

    1. Re:of course by Aetuneo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.
  3. Lol by jayhawk88 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of those, almost a sixth actually used P2P technologies from their work PCs.

    In other news, one sixth of one third of all IT admins are stupid enough to not block P2P traffic on their networks.

    1. Re:Lol by QuantumRiff · · Score: 4, Funny

      And what percentage of the people the called actually responded to the survey? I would kick my users if I found they took time out of the day to talk on the phone about how they break policy (and security) over the phone to a stranger doing a "survey".

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    2. Re:Lol by thegrassyknowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In other news, one sixth of one third of all IT admins are stupid enough to not block P2P traffic on their networks.

      It's quite hard to block p2p traffic explicitly while leaving other protocols open. P2P traffic moves in a number of arbitrary ports and uses a lot of protocols. New protocols are coming and going regularly. L7 packet filtering helps with the common protocols but if they are also using encryption you've got bugger all chance of blocking them totally.

      I was playing cat and mouse for a while. Block Kazaa and they move to Emule. Block that and they move to torrent. Block that and they start using gnutella. The game goes on and on.

      The only way I've found to reliably block all p2p and other things without major hassles in the firewall is to block everything, install a proxy server for HTTP, HTTPS and FTP and then only punch out ports from trusted machines and with good valid reasons from people (and a paper trail for those reasons). eg, the PBX can talk to our upstream SIP provider, the mail server can speak port 25 to the outside world but nobody else can and my desktop PC has rsync access to our ISPs file mirror.

      I have procedures in place to get things like torrents because they occasionally have legitimate uses. I have one machine that only I have a user account on. If someone thinks a torrent is useful and related to work they can ask me to get that torrent for them. It keeps them from running clients on their own PCs and still allows them to get files if needed. Half the time they just want torrents of files like Linux distros that are available on our ISP's mirror at no data charge to us.

      With all that security comes problems. The boss wants to violate his own Internet policy (bittorrent for movies and all that) and the new firewall stops him from doing it. He has a personal email account he insists on checking with pop3 but can't now because that's blocked. There are no end of complaints about how all these violating things that used to be possible now aren't. For many admins there is a lot of pressure from management to not block things because the managers want to have a free run. Not every IT person is gutsy enough to stand up and say "no fucking way".

      --
      I drink to make other people interesting!
    3. Re:Lol by vux984 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  4. What they don't say by kpainter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There are a lot of really stupid IT policies out there that, in the name of security, in fact merely hinder getting work done. I am not talking about P2P. Giving a developer a workstation with a user account with no administrator privileges on Windows is among them.

    1. Re:What they don't say by ruewan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you totally. There have been so many times that stupid policies made it difficult for me to get my work done. It is often easier to find ways around the security than to go through the proper channels. I had to do that a lot in my last job.

    2. Re:What they don't say by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:What they don't say by l0b0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Even worse is that once you break one of the unreasonable policies (no admin logon on a developer machine, say), it's hard to keep any respect for the more reasonable ones. A bit of trust and leniency would go a long way toward respect. You could for example tell employees that they should avoid spending a lot of bandwidth during peak hours, and give people plenty warning if they're hogging all the gas.

      Oh, and help them out a little by hinting about things like KeePass for passwords, TrueCrypt for sensitive data, and MD5 Password generator.

    4. Re:What they don't say by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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
    5. Re:What they don't say by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 2, Informative

      They're SSHd into their boxes at home because the power tripping network nazis at work are blocking things that are useful. Stop with the ridiculous lockdowns for technical people and it won't happen. If your technical people aren't technical enough to be trusted, get new ones. Problem solved.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  5. Unreasonable Policies by bazald · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Some policies just aren't reasonable or well thought out. This article is clearly blowing the issue out of perspective by not separating out different behaviors.

    Checking personal e-mail from a work computer-- 73% of those who have done this at work believe it is not risky, despite the fact that they could unknowingly download a virus that infects the corporate network. Wow, really? I'll stick to those corporate virus-free e-mail accounts from now on. Are they also completely free of spam? That would be nice too.
    --
    Insert self-referential sig here.
    1. Re:Unreasonable Policies by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Virus's through Outlook in the last 5 years: over 20 (including 7 PDF's this week)
      Virus's successfully deployed to my desktop over the last 5 years: 3 (apparently from laptops plugged into the network without being scanned). The PDF's would have deployed if I had been not been suspicous of getting a PDF from a stranger.
      Virus's through hotmail in the last 7 years: 0
      Virus's through gmail in the last 2 years: 0
      Virus's through through Yahoo in the last 3 years: 0

      ---
      Documents that were not documents BLOCKED by corporate virus scanners: At least a dozen.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    2. Re:Unreasonable Policies by WK2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some policies just aren't reasonable or well thought out.

      Exactly. Most corporate policy lists are like U.S. laws. Excessively numerous and impossible to follow. If you tried, you might get fired not completing your work at the speed of your co-workers. When I was young and naive, a manager actually told me that I can't follow all the policies, and that I just had to do my best to obey what I could, and not get caught for the rest.

      I've heard it said that corporate policy exists so that management can point blame wherever they want when something goes wrong, because everybody is breaking the rules. That would be in common with U.S. laws.

      --
      Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
  6. And then there is 1/3 ordered to violate.. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    by executives to make unrealistic deadlines which they decided without IT input.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  7. It's a cat and mouse game with IT by rrohbeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:When Policies are set by PHB's and you need to by Gibble · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pick something you can remember. The simplest way to have mixed case, alpha numeric password with punctuation, is a sentence that you can remember. "Today, a coffee cost $1.99 + TAX!" Secure, simple to remember, and passes all the validation you want to throw at it.

    --
    Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
  9. Hell, most companies aren't concerned... by msauve · · Score: 2, Interesting

    with the privacy of their employees. Case in point, mine provides my Social Security number to third parties, against my express direction, with absolutely no business need, and in direct violation of their own written privacy policy.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
  10. Where I work... by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...there's a very relaxed IT policy.

    Browse whenever you want, take whatever software you want home, check your email if you want, everyone's their own local admin, no audits.

    However, if you get caught with illegal software, miss a deadline because of blatant time-wasting, then you get fired (for continuous abuse). People work not because of policy, but because they want to do well and enjoy what they're doing.

    I happen to also work in one of the biggest names in IT too....not some small company. The policy works very well, as is evident from the company's success and the fact people rarely leave. That and brain-implants, anyhow.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  11. So, by no-body · · Score: 3, Interesting

    what is wrong here? Rules or people?

    Whenever rules are broken, something of the two is off.

    Remedies are not always adequate and can lead to more trouble.

  12. Re:When Policies are set by PHB's and you need to by Otter · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Today, a coffee cost $1.99 + TAX!"

    And is that the phrase for the for the dental plan password, the diversity training registration password, or the office supply purchasing password? Or an older phrase for one of them, as each one needs to be changed (out of sync!) 6 times a year.

  13. policy? by bigdavex · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm not supposed to post on internet forums.

    --
    -Dave
  14. Re:most employees... by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've actually tried this little social experiment.

    I run the network for my mother's company for free, so I'm allowed whatever liberties I'd like in deciding policy instead of having it dictated by a boss. They've got over 20 machines, and they aren't formally assigned, so if one goes down it's not the end of the world, the employee can use one at another desk for awhile. Usually they use the same one every day though.

    The experiment was this:

    Four new employees. Four new Windows XP Professional PCs. All use Firefox for a browser and Thunderbird for e-mail, along with the proprietary manufacturing/sales app that they run their business with. Two machines got Symantec anti-virus, and the other two got no anti-virus. They were told that since we don't have a copy for that machine, they'll just have to be extra careful about what documents they open, and how they use their e-mail. (We really were out of licenses/subscriptions, which is how this started)

    After three months, both of the AV-free PCs were completely fine, and one of the machines that had the anti-virus was running a botnet spammer (the outgoing spam was being blocked by the firewall). The most amazing bit though, was that the fear of not having anti-virus protection had stopped users of those two machines from doing most of the non-viral bad stuff that average windows users do. There was no proliferation of toolbars, no weatherbug.... They didn't even have realPlayer.

    It's amazing what a false sense of security people get from running anti-virus software. They don't even realize that they still have to be careful because 0-day threats aren't in the latest virus definitions yet. They think they can do whatever they want, because they are protected.

    The whole company has since gone anti-virus free on the desktop, and problem reports and performance complaints have dropped way down. Education and a healthy dose of respect for the evils of the world work better than any anti-virus on the market. And the cost savings are nice too.

    (There is still some basic protection in place. All internet access is through a secured web proxy. Non-http traffic isn't allowed. Intrusion detection on the firewall, etc... And the servers are still scanned, AVG on the windows servers, chkrootkit on the linux servers.)

  15. Less legal mumbo-jumbo in employee agreements by failedlogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I recall before a lot of companies had terms of network use, a few employees where I worked had been downloading games from warez servers because the company network was significantly faster than anything available at the time. I knew even the network admin was violating this. I very much felt like reporting it, but as an entry-level employee on their first job, 1) I would feel guilty with getting someone fired; 2) I didn't feel like testing management by reporting this and see myself get fired; 3) I didn't really understand the policy and didn't know what to do.

    I'll make clear that I wouldn't let this go today.

    My point in all this is, some people starting at the company may be aware of activities the admins themselves or other staff are performing which management may not be. My first job was relatively simple and well paid, I have had no beefs with the company. But our Acceptable-use policy book was some 20-30 pages long. This was about 10 years ago. I would rather have had a 1 page document, sign at bottom: I will not download virsues or warez, share company information or NDAs to outsiders, etc on company time. If I know another employee is doing so, please report anonymously to. Violators will be disciplined or fired.

    Really, does it really need to be any longer than this or more complicated? It simplifies reporting and makes the issue and repercussions clear. Get the 20 page document too if you must. But the one-pager should be clear to *all* employees regardless of law degree. But help make it clear too, that if you mistype a domain and get a porn site, you shouldn't have to hide it and feel like someone is about to can you (e.g. whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov).

  16. Re:In soviet Amerika, policy violates you! by Jhon · · Score: 2, Informative

    If my installing linux or using an "unapproved" email client upsets someone in IT, that's because THEY are in the wrong not me.
    There are countless examples available, but lets just focus on one you provided: your 'unapproved' email client.

    *YOU* are in the wrong. This is true if *YOU* are not paying for the hardware. This is true if you do not pay the support staff. It is not up to an employee to dictate what services a companies IT department will support -- that's up to management (hopefully with IT input -- but certainly not final say-so).

    We have limited budgets. I don't want to require that my staff knows eudora AND pine AND OE AND outlook AND thunderbird AND xyz AND abc AND fillintheblank. By making everyone use the same email client (or limited set of clients), you reduce training costs and quite frankly, you eliminate the user shooting themselves in the foot. YES there are some users who are quite able to troubleshoot for themselves. BUT, try telling Bob the luddite he can't use thunderbird (something he may have never used, but likes the way it looks) when Lennie The Linux Master two desks down is running pine!

    Simple solutions for companies who don't want silly and frequent helpdesk calls: Keep the workstations as uniform as possible within the scope of work any given employee is required to complete. Feel free to start your own business if the company rules don't appeal to you.
  17. The reason for IT policies by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I think it fair to say that IT policies are not there no be enforced all the time. They are there to give IT staff the tools to manage the system effectively and prevent excesses.

    For example the last place I worked at, the official line was "no personal use" but it was deemed OK to download a few mp3s or a Fedora ISO image here and there, thansfer your photos to flickr etc, but they stomped down hard on the guy who used approx 1/3 of the network bandwidth to download DVDs for his home viewing (and to give to his buddies etc). Printing a few tens of pages here and there for personal use was OK, but they stomped the the person who did a 5000 page print run for their club newsletter.

    It comes down to "reasonable force".

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  18. Developers... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The problem is, companies are cheap. Developers should have their own network that they can do whatever they bloody like with (IT dept. hands-off), and it should be isolated from the corporate network. But that means they need two machines, one with their corp email & IM and office tools & the like, and one that they actually develop on in their own sandbox...

  19. There are rules and there are RULES by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are rules, like the 70mph speed limit or no surfing Slashdot, which are usually ignored unless someone needs a reason to fire you.

    Then there are RULES, like not killing people and not using office computers to plot the overthrow of corporate executives, that will get you fired no matter what.

    Most people are smart enough to know rules from RULES. Those that don't get the corporate Darwin award.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  20. Let people browse! by $criptah · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  21. Re:most employees... by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  22. Simple Solution by PPH · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Back when I worked for an outfit that had a real constricted sphincter IT policy, the solution was simple: telecommute.

    The company imposed some really screwed up policies on desktop configuration but they had a liberal telecommuting policy. So everyone did their serious work at home. They shoved their (IT mandated) Windows systems aside, used Linux and other FOSS applications, surfed the web, downloaded tunes, played WoW or whatever. As long as they got their work done, management was happy.

    Strangely enough, the company was also heavily into a process standardization kick. I don;t think they ever confronted the fact that the work that was getting done could never have been accomplished with the 'IT Standard' tool suite. Too bad. A more open policy at work would allow them to capture best practices.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  23. Re:I don't believe it - bofh handbook reply by cumin · · Score: 3, Funny

    User: Ok, now I changed it to 'bobspassword2'.

    Me: Sorry, we can't both know your password, so I changed it.
    User: To what?
    Me: If I told you, then we'd both know it wouldn't we? yuk yuk yuk
    User: [grumbling] Okay, I'll change it, but I won't tell you this time.
    Me: Okay, it's temporary though, and will force you to change it when you log in, ready?
    User: *sigh* ready.
    Me: [mumble: random, okay] a;@#aslkdfQQQ$@$#%faWerrr@!!a;lskd1.

    Nobody, but nobody leaves their password as the one I give them. Few tell me twice.

    --
    Back in my day when we chiseled our bits into stone and sent them by mule train from village to village...