Slashdot Mirror
Employee Monitoring
CWmike writes "Michael Workman, an associate professor at the Florida Institute of Technology's Nathan M. Bisk College of Business, estimates that monitoring responsibilities take up at least 20% of the average IT manager's time. Yet most IT professionals never expected they'd be asked to police their colleagues and co-workers in quite this way. How do they feel about this growing responsibility? Workman says he sees a split among tech workers. Those who specialize in security issues feel that it's a valid part of IT's job. But those who have more of a generalist's role, such as network administrators, often don't like it. Computerworld contributor Tam Harbert found a wide variety of viewpoints from IT managers, ranging from discomfort at having to 'babysit' employees to righteous beliefs about 'protecting the integrity of the system.'"
You have to know when to police people. For example I only talk to people when their porn viewing habits get so strange that it started to expose the company to all sorts of lawsuits.
Society is growing used to more extensive monitoring overall. We monitor our babies with webcams. The webcams are then used in schools to monitor class rooms and playgrounds. When we grow up, we rename them security cameras and appoint low wage individuals as our watchmen.
In some areas of the world such as the UK, computers are already being used to analyze the images from the security cameras. Storage capacity grows, and data gathered from the image analysis are stored for a lifetime. They can be used to enhance the analysis of your children's children. The ones which protests are considered suspicious with "something to hide". The ruling class are the only ones exempt from monitoring.
In the next step, computers are used to analyse images from private bedrooms and bathrooms. After all, who needs to worry about privacy when it's only a computer watching. It's all about protecting us from the boogey man. Think of the children!
Resistance is futile. You will be monitored.
Tell your friends about xenu.net
"He goes through the logs to see if there's anything in there that needs to be exposed or discussed." Activity related to porn, gambling or hate speech automatically raises red flags, he says.
He once caught an employee who was engaged in criminal activity involving intellectual property that could have resulted in a big financial loss for the company.
Many years ago, I was in the company's server room talking to a buddy and he mentioned that an employee was taking up quite a bit of drive space - with porn. The guy had a problem. All you need is one guy with a problem like that to download some kiddie porn and your business will be shut down and you go to jail - over an employee with a problem. The guy I mentioned was talked to and I think he was asked to resign.
Observers say IT managers can expect to be asked to take on even more monitoring duties, such are reviewing video surveillance, examining text messages, tracking employee location by GPS or listening in on social media.
That's going too far. Come on - a Stalinist company?!?
Larger companies have started to hire third-party firms to monitor what's said about them in the blogosphere and on social media sites, but in many midsize and small companies, this duty could fall to IT.
That's also going too far. It's one thing what an employee does on company time and with company's resources, but they do on their own time - as long as it's legal shouldn't be a company's business.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
As I tell my customers when they ask, "You can't fix behavioral issues with technology." If employees want to waste time instead of working, they can surf the web or send chain emails. Take that away, they can play solitaire. Take that away, they can gab around the water cooler or stare into space and day-dream. Blocking porn and gambling sites is probably a good idea for liability purposes, but I can't see that it helps productivity.
Most frequently I'm asked to look at log files or email and tell employers things that I simply cannot know. I can tell them that an employee didn't log in to their PC until 10am, but I have no way of knowing when they actually arrived at work.
Unless you are working for a fortune 500 company whose image is often worth more than its current product line up, who cares? The only filters I have ever ran at a company I did IT for was for a list of of words that included, Lolita, Child Porn, Underage, No-nude and Preteen. We caught one contractor during the 8 months I worked there and it was his personal laptop, so we contacted the FBI. He was arrested on suspicion and they found enough Child Porn on his home computers that we never heard about him again, I moved before it could be brought to trial.
People surf porn at work that is just going to happen, if there work does not suffer and they are adults it is far more worthwhile to spend time worrying about security which can get you in real trouble.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I personally don't care what other people do in general. I am not their boss, and it's not my job to police what they do during work hours. I do keep logs, so if a person's manager wants to see what they've been doing I can give them a report. The only thing that I personally care about is employee behavior that may compromise my network. I do watch TCP traffic for abnormalities, and do have a black list of sites that will alert me if someone tries to visit something dangerous. Other then that, I really could care less if someone spends half their day on Facebook. It's not my job to make sure that other people are working...
If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
When it comes to being employed, though, bosses and managers have always watched their employees to some degree -- that is, of course, the purpose of being the boss. A good boss knows what sort of things are worth confronting an employee about -- maybe it is OK for someone to be chatting with their sweetheart, as long as their work is getting done, but maybe it is not OK for someone to be watching their sweetheart stripping in a video chat even if the work is getting done.
TFA raises a slightly different issue: when one employee is asked to monitor the others. Sysadmins should not be asked to take on the responsibility of watching employees; that is a manager's responsibility. If the manager is not technically competent to monitor computer use, then there is a question of why that person is managing people who use computers for their work -- the manager should be competent with the equipment.
Palm trees and 8
we pretend to work; they pretend to pay us
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I worked IT at a mortgage company run by someone without much in the way of morals. He wanted a print-tracking solution to monitor who was printing and what they were printing. As it happens, I later worked for a company which provided this exact solution, but ultimately it didn't matter because what he wanted was something he didn't want to spend any actual money on, and at the time any solutions were resource-intensive for a file and print server running on a then-midline Pentium 166 MHz, so it would have required spending money on hardware upgrades, too.
He wanted this solution to protect his leads, which he was convinced were walking out the door from employees taking them and selling them to his competitors; ultimately, it was one of those cases of suspecting other people were doing exactly what he would have done in their situation. I suspect there's a fair amount of this attitude, and it's probably more common in smaller businesses than Fortune 500 companies, who are generally more interested in liability.
It comes with a worker's willingness to work for you. If he WANTS to actually work for you instead of just getting paid for spending time at your office, he will work. Else he will do a half assed job, surveillance or not.
If you give your employees freedom and the ability to actually enjoy working for you, they will be much more productive. Because they WANT to be productive. Because they WANT your company to be successful, because that means they can keep that job. Sure, you will always have the ones that slack off, and not putting an eye on them constantly sure gives them an easier way to do that. But their coworkers, the ones that actually want to work for you and do want your company to thrive because it means a good, enjoyable job for them, will quickly identify such slackers and they will do the surveillance for you. Peer pressure can be quite powerful, to the point where your slackers will quickly realize that it's not the boss but the other employees that get angry with him if he's not pulling his weight. Plus, you can do without the investment in cams and surveillance staff. Your workers will do that for you. For free.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
we need a -1 *WHOOOSH* mod
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
When it comes to being employed, though, bosses and managers have always watched their employees to some degree -- that is, of course, the purpose of being the boss.
No, it's not. The purpose of being a boss is to set direction for and co-ordinate those who work under you, so that the individual contributions all advance the overall plans.
There is a certain type of person who does think that being the boss is primarily a power trip/disciplinary role. Such people usually live in middle management in large companies, because they are basically a waste of space. Small companies can't afford to have the dead weight, and large companies won't promote them to a level where they can do any serious damage but usually have too much bureaucracy to effectively detect and fire them.
Trust is a prerequisite for any employment relationship. If you don't trust the people working for you to do what they are supposed to without routine monitoring, then you have bigger problems than whether the monitoring itself is justified. Indeed, one could make a reasonable argument that routine monitoring implies a breakdown in the fundamental trust relationship between employer and employee, which would itself be immediate grounds for a constructive dismissal lawsuit in this country.
I can understand running automated tools to prevent, say, leakage of sensitive data. I can understand running automated tools to scan incoming data for viruses. This sort of thing is, sadly, reasonable for protection and sometimes necessary for legal/regulatory compliance in the modern world. However, it should rarely if ever disrupt an employee going about their business, and no-one else should be directly involved unless a problem is detected.
I can understand general performance monitoring. Recognising staff who do well is valuable. Helping (not attacking) staff who underperform is valuable. Firing staff who underperform and cannot improve is, unfortunately, sometimes necessary. But none of this stuff requires intrusive, minute-by-minute monitoring and recording of the kind we're discussing here.
The only time direct, intrusive monitoring is used should be when there is already a credible level of evidence of serious wrong-doing, and confronting the employee about that wrong-doing directly would prevent proper investigation. And in those circumstances, I tend to ask why the company is letting some next-line-up manager or IT/HR goon do the intrusive work. If it's that serious, the higher-ups should be calling the authorities, or at the very least passing a case file to internal security/legal staff who are required to handle the investigation with suitable discretion and a lot of accountability.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Greetings and Salutations....
A few years ago, one my my clients asked me to generate lists of the websites their employees had been on, and, how long they had spent on the sites. Since I run an in-house DNS server, not that hard to get. Well, I ran the reports for a few months, then, the project was quietly dropped. Why? It turned out that the only folks that spent significant amounts of time on porn sites and other non-business sites were the President of the company (who had ordered the reports) and his wife, the CFO of the company.
And THEY were burning a LOT of time on non-business related entertainment and shopping!
What was really amusing to me about this was that these two folks had the attitude that they were the only ones doing anything positive for the company, and, the employees were the enemy - and were spending all their time trying to steal time and resources away from the company, cutting down on profit margin!
Regards
Dave Mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
You know, I'm SO sick of the total bullshit line of reasoning that people like you keep giving for gross violations of our privacy, not to mention keeping people like me from doing my job.
Okay, so your company has a policy of not allowing me to browse porn on the Internet, woohoo. Why is it that you jump to the conclusion that the only way to make sure this doesn't happen is to monitor every single web site that I browse? Why can't you just have a policy of, hey, if management has some reason to think that KingSkippus might be up to something, then look for something fishy?
Ponder this. I'm pretty sure that my company also wouldn't like me browsing porn magazines at work. They'd probably get quite irate if, in the middle of the day, I pulled a Hustler out and started flipping through those oh-so-sweet pages. So is the only answer now to have security guards posted at every door to pore through all of my possessions as I come and go, making sure that I have no porn in my physical possessions? I also carry a 4 GB USB drive everywhere I go with some basic troubleshooting tools and electronic copies of documents that I like to have on me at all times. Every time I enter the building, should I be strip searched and, when such a thing is found, every file inspected to make sure that I don't have dirty pictures on it?
No, the whole "We must monitor EVERYTHING!" is just a BS policy made because people like you get off on your power trip.
Legally, it's really simple. You create a policy that says that if you're caught browsing porn on the Internet, you get fired. Managers back it up with action by, when people are caught browsing porn, they fire the person who was doing it. There's no need for stupid ass content filters, treating everyone like they're 13 year olds, to ensure this policy, any more than there's a need for strip searches or searches of all physicial possessions. If a company gets sued--and make no mistake, they will get sued no matter what policy they have--they show the judge the policy and their record of upholding it, and that's that.
I defy you to actually cite these throngs of "all sorts of lawsuits from sexual harrassment to violation of ethics laws," especially the ones where the court found a company liable because they didn't have a content filter in place with people like you watching everything everyone is doing instead of enforcing the policy when violations were reasonably found Big Brother-style. As long as we're talking anecdotally, you know who I've heard does the most browsing of porn on the Internet? High-level management. True story: at the company where I work, most of the executives have been given explicit exemption from our content filters. As for the "ethics laws" joke, discover the wonderful world of "situational ethics" and then explain to how you're protecting a company that deliberately puts a clause that says, "From time to time, the firm may waive certain provisions of this Code" in its Code.
The truth of the matter is that my company spends WAY more on content filters and salaries for people to set them up and monitor them, not to mention the cost to the business when they break and the Internet becomes completely unavailable, than it would on bogus lawsuits that would have been brought anyway. The whole "you need content filtering to protect you" is a scam perpetrated by content filtering companies and people like you who would probably lose your job if management figured out the truth and actually cared. (And, more importantly, did their job of dealing with these issues instead of foisting them on the IT group.)
Back in the mid-90s, my boss read an article that explained about how login scripts could be used on Windows 3.11 to do things like delete Solitaire and Minesweeper and replace the desktop background with a forced company standard. The next thing I
At my last place, I'd often work a bit of overtime in the evenings, and I came to know the security guards quite well. I had to walk past the block they were based in, so I'd always pop in and say hello (and usually ended up chatting for an hour or more).
By contrast, there was some shiny-suit type in that same building who, if he even acknowledged the guard's existence, would give him (and me) a filthy look and keep walking. Naturally, one guard started wondering what use this guy was... and filmed him through the window, from the CCTV camera on the opposite building. For an hour. On overtime. Surfing porn. I didn't see Shiny-Suit Guy after that.
Moral: if you're going to misbehave at work, keep Security sweet :)
Sorry for the double post, but I did want to say a few more important things.
I don't mean to imply that all IT security people are on power trips. I know a lot of them, and my job has me working with them a lot. Most are fine, upstanding, ethical people. A lot don't like doing what they are mandated to do by their corporate overlords. Most only do so as much as they have to.
But they're a bit like cops, as most cops are fine, upstanding, ethical people. Still, there are a few who really get off on how much access and control they have, and they use it every chance they get. They're the ones who like to brag to me, "Watch how I can access this random Schmo's desktop. See? They don't even know I'm doing it!"
I'm also not pretending like there should be zero interference with the network. I'm painfully aware of the problems that viruses, trojans, worms, phishing scams, etc. pose. The only reason I would ever advocate having a content filter is for that purpose only, blocking sites that are literally dangerous to be accessing, stuff like malware sites. I'm also for virus scanning, as that's a necessary evil as some people still do stupid things and not 100% of security threats can be caught.
What I object to, though, is this philosophy that we have to protect companies from people wasting valuable time or productivity. That's not IT's job, that's management's job. If I want to check my e-mail from work, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to check my damn e-mail. I also carry a smart phone and an iPad, so you really can't keep from from checking my e-mail anyway. (Or for that matter, goofing off with the many, many games that are available to me. Or for that matter, even--gasp!--browsing porn!)
I'm just sick of companies spending stupid amounts of money to save pennies in productivity and grossly violate people's reasonable expectation of privacy. It's not right, and given the GP's defense of such policies, it sounds like he has already drunk the corporate kool-aid.
No, the whole "We must monitor EVERYTHING!" is just a BS policy made because people like you get off on your power trip.
For some? Sure. There are always going to be petty bureaucrats who enjoy power-trips.
But that's hardly the only reason for that type of policy. Here are a few I know of off the top of my head:
As you may be able to tell, I have been responsible for setting up some such monitoring at my company in the past (though it has since fallen into disuse, largely because we laid off 3/4 of the employees...). Though I have no problem with a certain amount of incidental web browsing, there were people who were spending essentially the entire day streaming video (which clobbers our relatively small pipe), browsing MySpace, or playing Flash games. And yes, a couple who would browse porn. (And then there were the one or two who would download games to install onto their computers which turned out to be viruses. So we'd have to clean their computers and explain that that was bad. And then they'd go and install the same bloody virus-ridden game. Again.) It's one thing to poke around a little—or post on Slashdot—but when there's urgent business that needs doing, and it's not happening because you're goofing off...I mean, yeah, that's an issue for HR, eventually, but it seems to me that it is IT's responsibility to at least take basic, reasonable steps to see that those specific temptations are not available.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.