I know I'll regret it, but I'll step in here a bit.
[it seems mimo said:]
> 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.
>
[to which noonan notes:]
> I suspect that view is largely due to the fact that the company, not the
> employee, buys the computer. IOW, it is the companies "personal computer",
> not the employees... but I could be wrong...
>
> I guess I'll take the unpopular view. I agree wholeheartedly. I didn't buy
> the computer, so I have no rights to it. If the company wants to run SMS
> against it, monitor it, etc. more power to them. It's theirs anyway.
>
[Tobias:]
The difference is that they're not so much monitoring the PC as they're
monitoring the user. I couldn't care less if they monitored the PC I'm
using, checking how much power the CPU is spending, the fan turn rate, bus
utilisation, whatever. When they start watching what I'm doing I grow wary.
I don't know about you, but I don't like being under surveillance. I'm
pretty sure it would have very adverse effects on my productivity and would
induce a feeling of hostility towards those monitoring me -- they obviously
don't trust me, do they?
[noonan again:]
> My PC is at my house, where it belongs. They want me to work from my
> house,
> they give me a computer to do so. It works both ways. :)
>
[Tobias:]
I understand you to mean that you feel that a PC the company gives you to
work on at home is yours? Now that's a concept I don't get. I'd definitely
consider it the company's -- if they wanted it back, I wouldn't have much of
a choice, would I? I might feel more free to install what I want on the
machine and to make private use of it, but not much more than about the one
in the office.
[mimo, probably:]
> so what? I prefer to have people who watch porn and are efficient over
> those who are "normal"
> but produce nothing.
>
[noonan, I guess:]
> If you mean at work, I can only assume you have not worked for a company
> who
> has been sued (successfully) for sexual harassment as a result of people
> surfing for sexually explicit content. What goes on at home is no ones
> business, but at work, the company - not the employee - is held
> responsible
> in the courts for such actions, or at least that is how it works in the
> US.
>
[Tobias:]
You could try to enforce a policy of no-porn technically, but ultimately,
you've got to fail if the 'offenders' are dedicated enough. It's nothing
there's a technical solution for and technical means can only serve to aid
the administrative means that can actually take care of the matter.
Tobias
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
