Slashdot Mirror


Report Finds More Aussie Gov't Workers Misusing Internet

destinyland writes "A new report to Australia's parliament announces a 54% increase in government workers misusing the internet. In fiscal year 2010, 313 different federal workers came under investigation for improper use of e-mail or the internet, up from just 202 in the previous year. The report — available online as a PDF file — also discovered that nearly half the investigated workers were in the Australian Tax Office, according to an Australian technology blog. 'Maybe it's just a case of particularly boring work making such distractions more attractive,' they suggest, since the report blames most of the discovered cases on one-time incidents of poor judgment."

30 of 90 comments (clear)

  1. More likely a change in enforcement by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Huge year-to-year changes are more likely to result from changes to enforcement rather than changes to actual behavior.

    1. Re:More likely a change in enforcement by Eskarel · · Score: 2

      In this particular instance it's more likely to be related to the fact that the tax office had a major problem with their computer systems during fiscal year 2010 and the tax office couldn't actually process diddly squat for several months and therefor these drones had no work to do.

  2. Need to send a message by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

    I demand the Australian Government sends a strong message that this won't be tolerated. They must dissolve the Australian Tax Office.

  3. What did we learn FTA? by Aerorae · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Government workers are people too. Just like the people in businesses all around the world shopping for shoes on the clock.

    1. Re:What did we learn FTA? by obarel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't even know what "Improper use" is. Shopping for shoes online? Sending an e-mail to your wife? Checking the news, weather, traffic jams? Going on Facebook?

      Strictly speaking, even going the toilet is a waste of public money. But seriously... is day-dreaming for five minutes better than going on the Internet for five minutes?

    2. Re:What did we learn FTA? by yuhong · · Score: 2

      Agreed, way too vague. And indeed treating people as dumb automaton that always work 8 hours a day is a horrible idea in most cases these days.

    3. Re:What did we learn FTA? by AuMatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And do you have any idea what that would do to employee morale? To work for a place that's that draconian? You'd lose more productivity to that then you ever would to the internet. Not to mention many of your best employees would leave over time to any of the 99% of employers who don't give a fuck so long as your work gets done.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    4. Re:What did we learn FTA? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      IMHO "misusing the internet" should only apply for sending spam, doing DoS attacks, hacking other computers, and things like that. If I look out of the window instead of working, am I misusing the window?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    5. Re:What did we learn FTA? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Although superficially logical, I dislike this attitude. Relaxed, happy workers are generally more productive and of greater value to the company - showing them respect (and giving them the chance to blow off a little steam) by simply stating that they must maintain an acceptable level of productivity (hard to quantify, I know, but decent management should be able to roughly gauge how much work someone's getting done) is likely to work a lot better in the long run. Basic rules about illegal downloading and the like should obviously be in place, and if an employee is messing about online to the extent that it's detrimental to their work then of course disciplinary measures are in order, but telling your workers exactly how they must behave breeds resentment - telling them what they have to achieve and leaving it up to them to decide how to do so is a far more sensible tactic.

    6. Re:What did we learn FTA? by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      whitelisting can be a bigger sometimes though.
      I know when trying to figure out wierd application errors googling is generally the fastest way to find people who've had the same problem and how they've fixed it.
      I'd hate to be working on similar problems with a whitelist stopping me from viewing the thousands of tech support forums out there.
      I'd waste countless hours getting the same or worse info from documentation or trying to figure it out from scratch.

      ever tried to work out what "assertion error 266" or whatever the cryptic error is without google?
      With google: 20 seconds.
      without google or the internet: 20 minutes to hours.

    7. Re:What did we learn FTA? by obarel · · Score: 2

      People monitor the things that are easy to monitor, that's all.

      It's very easy for the IT department to log every improper use of the internet connection, but not so easy to make sure that people work while they sit at their desks.

      Are they thinking about work right now, or about their dog's broken leg?

      Do they keep making mistakes and then correcting them (strictly speaking a waste of their employer's time and money) or maybe working more slowly than what they're capable of?

      Are they annoying their co-workers (thus reducing their productivity) by speaking to the computer while they're working?

      Three are many many ways to waste the employer's time on the job, it's just that "misuse of IT" is so easy to monitor. When I see a report about the various ways people drive their colleagues up the walls I'll start taking IT abuse seriously. Until then, 5 minutes on Facebook is much better than constant farting.

    8. Re:What did we learn FTA? by BarryHaworth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm a bit surprised that there isn't any policy barring this sort of thing. I guess it probably depends what the job is, but if you're just needing access to email and a couple of known sites, whitelisting those sites and blocking everything else isn't that hard. I remember the last time I had a job with internet, they were pretty clear that the connection belongs to the employer and that any use of it for anything that wasn't specifically sanctioned would lead to discipline.

      Oh, there's a policy all right, and a comprehensive system of filtering of content. Without having a copy of the policy in front of me (I'm not browsing Slashdot at work :-), sites such as online email and social media are are prohibited outright and will display a "Blocked" message if you try to access them, others are questionable in some way and will display a "Coached" message, meaning that you can still click through, but be warned that your access is being monitored and you may be called on to justify accessing that site. Other sites, such as online banking & news sites, are specifically allowed in the policy, so long as access is infrequent and brief and does not interfere with regular work.

      This occasionally pops up a few unintentional ironies. Last year there was an article in the weekly internal newsletter about the ATO's new Facebook Fan page which included a helpful link. But when you clicked on the link - Blocked! Another time a work related email list I subscribed to posted a link to an XKCD cartoon (this one I think: http://xkcd.com/552/ - I'm a statistician), but clicking on the link brought up the message: Blocked: Category Humour not permitted.

      Occasionally it is even useful - is is not uncommon to browse a news site and see the article text just fine, but have many of the ads replaced by Blocked messages.

      --
      I am a Statistician. One false move and you are a Statistic
    9. Re:What did we learn FTA? by plover · · Score: 2

      happy workers are generally more productive and of greater value to the company

      I spotted the problem in your logic above. We're discussing government agencies, not a for-profit company. Governments, as a rule, have always treated their civil servants with the least amount of civility possible. And production apparently never enters into the equation, which is why when on the rare occasion they have enough people to do the job in a timely fashion, they cut the budgets, shed a truckload of them and delays once again become the norm. Standard operating procedures for government agencies of any size, from cities all the way up to nations.

      My prediction? Draconian rules will be applied, overall workplace misery will increase, and nothing else will change.

      --
      John
    10. Re:What did we learn FTA? by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Improper use is a grey area, however some people should just apply common fucking sense and see their interpretation is pitch black of what is and isn't improper. Gordon Brown buying stuff on ebay in the middle of a parliamentary sitting is improper. These buffoons get paid a fortune to do a small amount of work and even then they don't pay attention.

      Not improper enough? How about Kiddy porn viewed on parliament computers

    11. Re:What did we learn FTA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Memorize all your pr0n before leaving the house, and recall images as necessary.

    12. Re:What did we learn FTA? by zippthorne · · Score: 2

      Indeed. The only people who governments treat with less respect than civil servants, are the ones paying the bills...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    13. Re:What did we learn FTA? by obarel · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Blocked: Category Humour not permitted.

      That is the saddest message I have ever seen in my life.

    14. Re:What did we learn FTA? by __aaeuwj6541 · · Score: 2

      Government IT departments just cant deal with the crappy government policiy. and so we spend our time on slashdot, hence the huge number of workers slacking off not fixing government computers. oh wait....

    15. Re:What did we learn FTA? by macshit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I don't think that screwing around on the internet doing non-work things ought to be acceptable. Personally, I don't want to have my morale harmed by being asked to pick up the slack because there isn't enough productivity to cover the work needed. Doesn't matter whether it's too few employees or too much goofing off online.

      It strongly depends on the job. If your business only requires mouth-breathers, you can do what you want, because you're scraping the bottom of the barrel anyway; they're desperate. But if you need employees with some degree of intelligence/creativity/etc, and you go all control-freak, you will lose all the good ones.

      Your choice I suppose.

      [Of course logic rarely has anything to do with it -- authoritarian bosses tend to be that way for personal reasons, not because it's actually the best way to run their business...]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    16. Re:What did we learn FTA? by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Funny

      What about those of us that DON'T have a pornographic memory?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  4. How extensive are the investigations? by AllWorkAndNoPlay · · Score: 2

    Makes you wonder what costs more: 313 federal workers shopping for shoes on the clock, or the 313 investigations into their behavior that ensued.

  5. Oh no. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    After years and years of abuse by the Australian government and the laws they made concerning it, now the internet also has to suffer the misuse by Australien government workers.

    Would someone please think of the electrons?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Oh no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just for the sake of clarity. The Australian Government has not actually made any laws about the Internet. They've just talked about it.

  6. is this even worth bothering about anymore? by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Maybe it's different in areas other than tech, but in technology, both in industry and in academia, there isn't much correlation between the productivity of a worker and their tendency to "misuse the internet". There are plenty of very productive people who also post on Twitter a few times a day, take a brief detour while googling for an answer to a tech question to answer a question on StackOverflow that came up in the search, glance at a few mailing lists, and check their personal gmail compulsively. Especially for people under 35 or so, it might actually correlate positively with productivity: the kinds of people who can't keep themselves from answering StackOverflow questions, reading / posting on mailing lists, etc., are often much more proactive and plugged into many parts of the tech scene, compared to the people who just keep their head down and put in their 8 hours.

    1. Re:is this even worth bothering about anymore? by javakah · · Score: 4, Interesting

      From what I've seen of this, the flip side of this is that such people are also much more likely to be checking work email, etc. after hours. So if something suddenly comes up during non-normal hours, it's more likely to be dealt with quickly as part of a give-and-take approach. It's a blending of personal and working life. Yes, you do have to accept that some personal matters will be dealt with during work hours, but work matters will then sometimes be dealt with during personal hours.

  7. Aussies, keep em of the internet! by santax · · Score: 2

    Don't get me wrong, under normal circumstances I love the Aussies. But they are such bad winners. Whenever I lose a game of chess to an Aussie they say: mate mate. Come one - I can see it's mate! Don't have to tell me twice. A bunch of insensitive clods, that's what they are!

  8. Good for handwringing(esp. if porn); but boring. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These studies about (almost always public sector) workers and their terrible, terrible internet misuse seem like little more than ammunition for the handwringers, and maybe a couple of privatization zealouts.

    Reality: Unless chained to an assembly line, under guard, most workers are going to spend some minutes a day doing some form of "nonwork". Particularly for people whose work involves a mixture of thinking and typing, it won't even be trivial to distinguish between work and nonwork, and for people whose work involves manual labor, one has to make the distinction between "rest" and "slacking off".

    Given that the internet is a bottomless well of amusements, as well as an excellent way to check personal email, pay that credit card bill you just remembered to avoid a late fee, queue up a netflix item while you are still thinking about it from that conversation at lunch, etc. it seems pretty obvious that most of the white-collar nonwork is going to be internet related(and almost 100% of the visible kind is. If somebody spends 10 minutes 'cleaning their desk' in order to avoid work, nobody will ever know. If they spend 10 minutes on reddit, IT can know completely automatically.

    Now, as "IT" for an institution myself, I can sympathize with IT trying to block certain sorts of extracurriculars: I don't want to get a BSA beatdown because you were on warez.ru. I don't want to spend my already overstretched time battling viruses because you just had to download free smilies and/or goat porn. If the institution's attorney's come to me and say "We are being sued for creating a hostile, porn infested work environment." I would like to be able to say "Well, we have measures in place that meet or exceed industry standards for professional content filtering; but, as no programmatic filter can be perfect, we do ultimately depend on HR's training and disciplinary procedures." rather than "Well, goodbye to my career..."

    However, again in "IT"'s shoes, I don't give a fuck if you want to check your gmail, balance your checkbook, or do some online christmas shopping. If it doesn't mean legal exposure or substantial likelyhood of time consuming or costly network damage(thanks to 3rd party ad networks, virtually any site is a potential risk, but the known hives of scum and villainy are worse...) If your performance sucks, hopefully your performance reviews will reflect that and get you fired. If your performance doesn't suck, the cost of a few megabytes off our big fat institutional connection is A)sunk, we pay for the pipe whether we use it or not and B) probably less than your paperclip budget for the year. I. Don't. Care.

    Worker productivity is not a problem that you can solve by dicing up their workday and micromanaging what happens during every second. Decide what performance you want, fire people who don't meet it, keep people who do, promote people who exceed it. Don't fuck around with meaningless(but easy to measure) minutia: that is practically the definition of "cargo cult management".

  9. Re:Good for handwringing(esp. if porn); but boring by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    Oh, one other thing (this one actually causes the most friction with the users): we in "IT" generally have to block streaming music sites. This one strikes people as arbitrary and draconian; but the logic is actually pretty clear: unlike streaming video, which is bandwidth intensive but only somebody heading for a pink slip will need more than a few minutes a day of, streaming audio can easily replace the radio.

    Since our primary business is not internet related, we only have a nice-but-modest commercial connection setup(ie. multiple redundancies; but actually a bit under 100Mb/s down for over 1,000 users). Since user traffic is quite bursty, this is virtually never a problem. Most user downloads are remote host limited, and against fast remote hosts 1-2 megabytes a second are not uncommon. However, if we assume that "streaming audio" means "64-128Kb/s, per terminal", even a solid 100megabit line could only support 1600 concurrent 64Kb/s or 800 128Kb/s users, and that only if nothing else where going on, which isn't the case.

    I suspect that other moderate to large sites are fairly similar: their pipes are faster, and almost definitely more redundant, than what comes to your house; but if evenly divided(instead of burstily divided) among all users across a site, they are actually pretty under-provisioned. Since real-world traffic is typically bursty, they'll run like a bat out of hell if you catch them at the right time; but if the entire accounting department is tuning in to 128Kb/s EZ-listening, that could easily eat 3/4 of the pipe...

  10. nothing to do with boring work or distractions by bloodhawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason the ATO is so high on the list has nothing to do with behaviour of its staff (at least there behaviour is no worse than any other departments staff) and everything to do with how strictly they enforce the rules. As someone that works with many of the agencies in Aus the enforcement ranges from ATO's strict handling of the issue to many other departments that do nothing at all or hand out warning for all but the worst breaches, hell I worked at one that specifically told me to disable logging as if they logged the traffic they would have to do something about it and they didn't have the policy's in place to handle the legal issues that would arise at the time.

  11. As a government IT Security Adminitrator... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, so I work as a contractor for an Australian government department, as an IT Security Administrator no less... by accessing pornography, pirated material, games etc. you're opening up a vector for attack which can be exploited by a variety of malware, from Flash exploits to browser exploits, all because you bastards want to use work resources for non-work reasons. Now, I don't care that much if people use work resources for non-work reasons but when it threatens the confidentiality, integrity and availability of various systems on the network then it becomes my problem which in turn becomes everyone's problem on the network. Most of this crap is sent via email and people accessing links from said emails, with the increase of sophisticated social engineering attacks, with some specially crafted for a target, and with the average employee's ability to determine what's real and what isn't (fuck all) it can become a serious problem quite quickly especially when politicians and people with have evaluated privileges for certain systems do it as well.