Slashdot Mirror
Young Employees Pose Increasing Risk to Networks
buzzardsbay writes "Baseline is reporting on an upcoming survey from Symantec and Applied Research-West that confirms many suspicions about the generation gap in the workplace, namely that younger workers will use your corporate network to run most any device, technology or social networking software they can get their hands on. Dubbed "Millenials," these workers born after 1980 are nearly twice as likely to use cell phones and PDAs at work, and half admit to installing unauthorized software on their employer's computers. On the upside, the Millenials are more security aware than their older co-workers."
isn't it the company's responsibility to control their network?
Most people born after 1980 are treated like shit in the IT industry. You are taken on for pitiful wages with vague promises of future riches, squeezed for every bit of knowledge you have, then booted out when the project(s) you are working on are finished. So it is hardly surprising that people treated so shabbily don't have a particular commitment to their workplace.
Most of the highly technical and well paid jobs (system admins and the like) seem to be already taken by well established old folk, and nobody is really interested in training anybody for when they retire. Managers take IT systems completely for granted, consider IT professionals to be lowly peons, and are in for a nasty shock when the handful of people keeping their systems running leave.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Looks like the title is overblown. The younger works do slightly more risky things than the older workers. However, the older workers (Gen X in this case) still do all the same things, just a little less often. None of the numbers suggest a big change in risk. A lot of the risk factors being described just go from numbers like 47% to 51%. Hardly anything dramatic.
If you want to secure your network, you need to address all the risks that are out there. Adding a little more risky behavior does not really make for any real changes is the risks to the network. Networks are always at risk from the weakest link. A 60 year old employee who happens to do something risky is just as bad for the network as a 20 year old.
They are more aware. They just don't give a shit. :-)
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
- Do it but don't admit it
- Or don't it but are way less productive than their peers
I don't know how it is for the rest of the slashdot crowd but almost everywhere I've worked it's impossible to be (decently) productive using only authorized software. Quite. I remember being employed to do software development when there were no programming languages included in the approved software, because the people who drew up the approved software list had never bothered to ask the business areas what they did with their computers. I never did get any languages approved, but I did get them to lift my authorisation level so I could run executables that weren't on their heavily locked-down desktop, which was all it took. The company bought the C++ compiler I asked for, and I installed and used it -- unauthorised.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
This article appears to be taking a stupid slant on the statistics that have been gathered. It keeps harping about the "Millenials" (people born after 1980) when really it should say "people in their 20s". My issue is that 20 years from now, the Millenials will be in their 40s, but it will still be the people in their 20s who are the greater risk. The Millenials are not a generation of risk takers, they are currently at the risk taking age.
When I was in my 20s, I was much more risk prone than I am now (in my 40s). Back then I considered it my *right* to be able to install whatever I wanted on a computer, and would be unconditionally annoyed and offended if it was not allowed. Today I am more aware that there are reasons for most restrictions. Yes, some restrictions don't make sense, but a very many do.
This type of thinking was in more aspects of life than just computers. Back in my 20s, I would say that I drove less cautiously than I do today. I drank more heavily, ate poorly, resented having to wear a bike helmet, jay-walked more often, the list goes on. These are all behaviours that I, and most people, grow out of.
Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
Where I work, the company standard IDEs for web development are Dreamweaver or Eclipse. Both are completely unacceptable. Yet, a F/OSS text editor like jEdit is nonstandard but allows me to be much more productive. Why? Because it allows me to work quickly. I have all of the powerful text editing tools of an IDE without the extreme overhead.
Also, as someone else replied, Firefox and certain plugins like Firebug and the Tidy validator are critical. I am a web developer, you see, and IE's ultracrappy javascript debugging capabilities are not even worth considering (even with the insanely useless MSFT Dev Toolbar installed). Profiling AJAX calls, or ANY HTTP request, is impossible without a tool like Firebug. And they are all nonstandard, but without them it would be more time consuming if not practically impossible for me to debug or optimize web pages.
I am not trying to install iTunes or GAIM or games. Stupid people install that stuff at work. I just want to use tools that will allow me to get the job done. The web and its technologies are rapidly changing. Company Standard Software committees do not seem to be able to keep up, at least where I work. So, you can either 1) fight the establishment and risk looking like an "OSS hippie troublemaker" and still never get what you need, 2) work with approved but ineffective and usually expensive tools, or 3) just install what you need and produce good work. Within reason, I go with option number 3.
So...unauthorized software isn't always better; authorized software isn't always better.
blah blah blah
Why do people in this country feel so obligated to work for companies that treat them like crap?
Somewhere along the line here is some element of choice, and it's an element that people have somehow been taught that they don't really have anymore. "It's the best job I can get" or "that's how this industry works."
I don't accept that, and I don't think anyone else should. Once you're working at a certain level, probably just above the poverty line, you make a choice what you're going to do to earn money, and who you're going to work for. We all make these choices based on supporting the kind of lifestyle we want. If your entire industry works this way, and you hate it so badly, you should work in ways that don't make you miserable. That might mean adjusting your lifestyle. But seriously, find something that makes you happy and do it. Don't spend your life working for people that treat you like crap. I won't, even if it means living in a tent. I'm not for sale.
http://downwithpants.org Overthrow the tyranny of your pants