Slashdot Mirror
How To Thwart the High Priests In IT
GMGruman writes "You know the type: They want to control and restrict any technology in your office, maybe for job security, maybe as a power trip. As the 'consumerization of IT' phenomenon grows, such IT people are increasingly clashing with users, who bring in their own smartphones, use cloud apps, and work at home on their own equipment. These 'enemies' in IT are easy to identify, but there are subtler enemies within IT that also aim to prevent users from being self-sufficient in their technology use. That's bad for both users and IT, as it gets in the way of useful work for everyone. Here's what to look for in such hidden IT 'enemies,' and how to thwart their efforts to contain you."
While some people get the policies wrong, in general the idea of IT policies is a good one; the only way to support business policies is to allow for sensible IT policies to exist. If the IT policies don't serve the business policies, someone's not doing their job right, but that's not a problem with the idea of policies existing at all. If you want to "thwart" your IT people, you'd better have a damned good reason.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
Sounds like the article was written by a tool with no understanding of how enterprise IT works, and no grasp of what bringing alien, unknown systems into contact with critical infrastructure can lead to.
IT is overhead. It's a cost center. It generally does not generate revenue. Maintaining an infrastructure costs the company money. Every time you want to bring in your personal equipment, we have to figure out how to support it and that raises the company's overhead. Instead of making IT justify why we don't want to support your Widget Of The Day, why don't YOU justify to the company why you're increasing costs and then work to have that increase added to IT's budget so that we can actually afford to support your crap without having to divert funds away from things that the company has already approved?
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
I certainly understand that users want to use what is easy for them but they need to understand that they don't set policy. I listen to any reasonable requests and if they fit within our policy (or if it makes sense to change the policy to allow it) I will authorize their request. However, understand that I have been working in IT for over 20 years and know a thing or two that you probably don't. Its not a power trip, its my job, it is what they pay me to do. Employees need to understand that its not personal. If their request was denied I had a very good reason to do so. Get over it, move along.
Seriously? We don't want uncontrolled portable devices on our networks because we don't control them. We can't force-install AV software (if it even exists for your favorite no-name phone/player/tablet/whatever), we can't even do basic cleanup of them without your cooperation.
And that only describes them as a potential vector for attack. We also can't control who else has access to them, can't wipe remotely without your permission, can't keep you from leaving it, complete with the latest super-secret corporate strategy on it, in the bar at a random trade show.
Dislike of portables has nothing to do with controlling you, and everything to do with controlling and protecting what the company pays us to - Their IT infrastructure and digital IP.
It's the sort of stupid article you'd expect from an organization that is supposedly all about information technology, but is so backwards that they're endlessly pestering me to take a free subscription to their dead-tree edition. If their web site isn't even worth visiting for free articles, why would they think I want to spend the effort moving their magazine from my mailbox directly to the trash?
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Dear GMGruman,
Go fuck yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Pretty much every sysadmin anywhere that's been tasked with providing IT services to keep a business running as productively and profitably as possible, in spite of people like yourself.
...but I stopped counting how many times the author recommended trying to cost people their jobs for actually doing them after the third time. I'd like to offer something more insightful in response, but I'm afraid I'm left with "What a smug asshole."
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Maybe you have never worked with stupid requirements that Feds enforce but I have. This stuff is life or death to company. People can and will get fired instantly for breaking it. So like others have said, it's not that we want to impede the user, we have no choice.
And if they get caught they will be fired...if they are lucky. Working around IT policies put in place to comply with government regulation for any reason looks suspicious. If the feds notice the results can be much, much worse. When I see violations to SOX or corporate policy I make it a point to inform the person violating the policy and their supervisor. I also send an email to my supervisor with the details of my observations and subsequent actions so there is a record that I did not turn a blind eye to the infraction. How it is handled from there is up to the person violating the policy and their superiors. I can't speak for other IT "dictators" but the way I look at it is if you get this office shut down it affects my job too @ss hole. As it happens I can see the old Enron building (now owned by Chevron) from my office. A constant reminder of just why SOX exists in the first place.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K