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.
All right, Mr Gruman you have trolled and since I'm one of your bad guys I'm going to respond and enlighten you:
I have best practices that tell me to control these things that you want to let roam free. I also happen to have laws, and some of these laws have very large financial penalties or the possibility of jail time.
Mr Gruman, how many attorney generals have you had conversations with after someone went ahead and did what you wanted done? I'm willing to bet it's not as many as I have had and that you've never had to deal with the results of your company making the international news because someone decided to bypass IT.
Your insight into how to play dirty politics to get your "Toy" into the office shows your complete lack of an understanding of how the enterprise works. Is your department going to pay for the budget for the time needed to support your toys?
These code phrases are code for things like "mutli-million dollar fines", "angry attorney generals", "class action lawsuits", "criminal negligence", "security clearance", "ethics", "privacy" and other such things.
You see this is what happens when some petty ass whiny twit such as yourself goes to the CIO and says I want my toy and the IT department won't let me have it. The CIO comes to the IT department and says, "why won't you let this twit have his toy" and we're going to come back with something like "federal law, accountability, public relations disaster".
You know what Mr Gruman, I have never, ever lost that argument. When you take into account that regulation is only increasing the odds that I might lose that argument drop even further.
Now Mr Gruman, instead you should try the tactic of saying "IT Department, I want to use this toy for business purposes and not just as a toy, can you please look too see if we can?". You might have a perfectly legitimate case, and it might be very reasonable to do what you want, but you have to ask so that we can see if we can do that without avoiding nasty code words.
Just remember my code words can and have cost companies many millions of dollars when someone blew them off and ignored the IT department.
...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.
And I'm not talking about Hanes.
If you are dealing with the feds, the meeting the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley act is a fact of life. Failing to deal with the requirements can essentially mean the death penalty for the company because the feds won't do business with you if you are out of compliance.
The Act essential deals with setting up security and policies that prevent someone from being able to game the system. A Buyer can create a PO, but cannot perform A/P functions do pay the PO and cannot receive the product. Just a simple example.
But in my company, many, many people got their panties in a twist when we started taking away their ability to do things and requiring them to abide by policies and procedures. It can be a big culture shock to small to mid size companies that grow into a larger markets with the Feds.
One of the biggest headaches was enforcing the use of standard cell phones and disallowing the storage of data in the phones. Anything that comes onto premises, had any kind of connectivity with the network and then left the premises is now tightly controlled and locked down. All the laptops have encrypted hard drives and even USB drives are automatically encrypted when they are connected if they are not already. If you have dealt with sales people, you know they don't like that one bit. Shit, I can't even install and use iTunes or any other mp3 players.
So to the feds, this is a Big Deal and people can and have lost their jobs for trying to game the system because otherwise, the whole company could be dead, figuratively speaking.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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