This is when the concept of PC "personal computer" changes to CC "company
computer". I'm not saying I like it, but this is what management is
demanding.
/===============================\
| Micky Mimo |
| Systems Specialist |
| (781) 869 - 3677 ext.505 |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\===============================/
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of mouss
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 1:21 PM
To: Jarmoc, Jeff; Henry Sieff; 'Jeremy'; Firewalls
Subject: RE: blcking sites
Hi Jeff
At 17:04 19/09/00 -0500, Jarmoc, Jeff wrote:
>I'm going to play devil's advocate here.
I appreciate. It's always a good thing to do. truth is the daugther of
debate.
> > - privacy: who is allowed to see the log reports? the admin is ok, but
why
> > the managers? the FW is here for security not for "spying" the
employees.
>
>You could argue this. In many companies, the fact that firewall's can be
>used to monitor employee internet access is one of their biggest selling
>points. Employer's own the PCs, bandwidth, and even time that employees
use
>for surfing, so why call it 'spying?'
This seems true, but imagine an employer trying to hire someone and saying
"ok,
I'll give you access to a PC, but don't forget it is _mine_, and you should
only use
it for the company eneift, and I am the one who decides what is good". I'm
sure the guy
goes for another company. In other words, while there are some "obvious"
facts such as
who owns what in a company, this is only true from a legal viewpoint. If my
boss
ever touches my PC, then he will hear about it: eventhough my PC belongs to
the company,
it is mine while I work for the company. This is not contradictory. The
only reason someone
in the company can use my PC is either they have a problem with me, and
then they better
be right there, or the guy asks for my authorization.
I have nothing against an employer claiming that one should use _his_
resources the way he
decides, but ten let him write a formal paper on the usage. Then believe
me, I won't take any initiative,
I'll follow the paper. Clearly, this is not what an employer wants.
>Is it spying to monitor my home with
>an electronic surveillance system, or cameras in order to catch someone who
>breaks in? If not, then how is it anymore spying to monitor usage of my
>resources to ensure no one is abusing them?
if you set up a camera to watch what yur wife does at home, then this is a
sort of
spying and is not good. In other words, if you don't have confidence in
people
you live/work with, then there is a problem anyway.
Also, as I said above, these are not _your_ resources. You gave them to
your employees
to make you earn money. Giving them the freedom to use the resources
make'em feel
better, and probaby more productive, which is exactly what you want. do
they watch porn?
so what? I prefer to have people who watch porn and are efficient over
those who are "normal"
but produce nothing.
> In corporations where proposals
>are sent by email, and web access can be business critical, is it wrong to
>keep users from downloading MP3s and surfing for porn while other, business
>critical traffic, is forced to queue up or time our entirely?
This argument is almost reasonable. However, let's just take email. This is
a forward
and store protocol. In other words, it is difficult to say when the message
will arive since
it depends on the config of all the relays between the systems (this is not
a stupid choice,
it is reasonable: you don't wanna deliver messages when you receive them,
but on a periodic
basis). Let's now tae the web. seen how long it takes to download pages?
This is primarily
because there are too much users compared to the lines ISPs have installed.
In other words,
the problem is that the available resources are inadequate, and not because
of users but because
of financial decisions by ISPs and by companies. Believe me or not, I have
less problems connecting
to the net from home than from my office (though the company pays the high
price!), just because the
office is conected to a very used network.
But let's imagine you're right. Then it is a question of priority. Why
would I not surf just to let the sals director
get his email/web pages qucikly? Is his work more important? How can one
says if my surfin is good or not?
After all, all I've learned comes primarily from publicly available network
resources. How much would a boss
pay for all that stuff if it was not available on the network?
>This is an educational issue. It's important to inform people about how to
>read reports.
Here I fully disagree. Educational issues are the one to stay unsolved, if
nt for eternity,
then for very long. Yo can tell them what you want, there are things that
you can't change
in people behaviour. I hear'em say "Don't repeat it, it's a secret, but
you're my friends so I'll
tel you: Bob porn-surfed yesterday" (I'm proud of my "porn-surfed" word!).
Also, when you
know something, you can't act as if you don't. The day the guy infuriates
you for some reason,
you'll find it hard not to repeat what you know.
>I think most managers I've encountered are as much concerned
>with the type of content as they are with the duration of it's viewing.
The problem is that they are not competent in this area. If content type
control is to be enforced, then the decision and the contro are to be
in the hands of the "strategic" staff, not the managers. If personnal
opinions should ever come to play, then they should be those of "strategic"
staff, as the conseuqnces may be very dangerous.
>This is true, but somewhat akin to saying that people will waste time, so
>why try to stop them. Besides, I think the concern is not so much users
>wasting time as it is the fact that they're wasting resources. Those
>resources could be helping someone else who is working and bringing in
>business to the company actively.
Right, but if it is a resource sharing proble, then "active" control is not
necessary.
react when your connection is bad because of "free surfing". Then if you
have reasonabl people at the office, you'll come to a peaceful solution. If
you have egoist people, then no solution is good, it'll be the jungle law:
those who
have the power will have the connectivity.
> > The only reason I see for limiting access is for legal or reputation
>problems.
> > but that's a long long story. After all, I'm not a lawyer :)
>
>That's obviously a concern too. Especially under the broad definition of
>'hostile workplace'
cheers,
mouss
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
