[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Another problem with preventing access to adult sites is that some may
> consider an adult site if the site contain the word breast versus a real
> pornographic site.
Good point. Are you going to assign someone the task of determining
which sites are pornographic and which aren't? Would you do it
yourself? What's the business case? What's the ROI?
> Site policies examples I have seen usually to avoid the above is users
> shall not browse sites that are publically offensive to the general
> consensus of the user environment.
You guys are hardcore. I wish I had the time to worry about what users
are browsing. For most shops it's sufficient to post a generic policy,
something out of Charles Wood's books (www.baselinesoft.com), and issue
a warning or two when the usage reports show clear evidence of a
problem (bandwidth or otherwise).
> This allows for organizations late to
> make a determination what is publically offensive and then determine the
> warnings, violations, etc. I worked for a company many years ago where
> they stated "Thall shall not view the competitors web site"
Competitor's websites, termination..., sounds like a company I wouldn't
want to work for. It's difficult and expensive to hire and retain good
people. An unobtrusive amount of pornographic web usage is something
most companies would have a hard time making a business case against.
We talking policy here, not law. Privacy and bandwidth are, to a
reasonable degree, perks. At least they are where management realizes
that good employees can find another job easily given the economy.
If an employee isn't doing their job that's another issue. As long as
they're productive a certain amount of tolerance is good policy.
IMHO,
--
Roger Marquis
Roble Systems Consulting
http://www.roble.com/
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
