Well, the prevailing assumption of the article is actually wrong in a most basic sense. It places blame on the IT Department. Frankly that is generally the wrong department to blame. The lock down web sites are generally not going to be an IT Department decision, it's going to be a management decision.
The staying with XP vs a newer operating system. Not upgrading hardware during a time when revenue in a given industry is falling (newspaper) for systems that while not 'faster' are certainly in the 'working' category. While he may not have 'used' all his gmail space after x number of years, I doub;t he is getting large amounts of doc, ppt, xls, files on a regular basis either not to mention how Google is making money on ad revenue and searching his mail box for usage patterns for financial profit either. Many companies provide internal IM capabilities as well (mine does). Others do not allow freedom of mobile devices either due to regulatory compliance (our security department hacked the test iPhone when it connected tot he wireless netwok because the guy advocating it's use was being annoying). Steven On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 2:35 PM, David Lum <[email protected]> wrote: > “Employers could require workers to sign agreements promising that they'll > back up all their data and run the latest antivirus software and won't > download pornography. Employers can also require workers to run all of their > corporate applications inside a virtual machine on the computer, which seals > company information off from everything else.” > > > > And the consequences to the employee for not doing this is…..? Oh yeah, same > as when they’re at home “I screwed myself, can you save me?” > > David Lum // SYSTEMS ENGINEER > NORTHWEST EVALUATION ASSOCIATION > (Desk) 971.222.1025 // (Cell) 503.267.9764 > > From: Jackson, Jeff [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:31 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow users to > install whatever > > > > I’m glad Mr. Wingfield is tech savvy, I have a feeling he’s not gonna get > much in the way of support from WSJ’s IT staff… > > > > Jeff > > > > From: Webster [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:21 PM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow users to > install whatever > > > > I liked how the WSJ IT staff refused to comment for the article. > > > > > > Webster > > > > From: Jonathan Link [mailto:[email protected]] > Subject: WSJ Reporter thinks IT departments should allow users to install > whatever > > > > Discuss: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703567204574499032945309844.html > > > > I believe this is more an indictment of the low quality of journalism > nowadays. It's little more than a rant on his employer's IT policies. In > no instance does he discuss the measured effect of IT policies might have > within an organization. He makes vague allusions to the productivity gains > users could acheive if allowed to use any software they felt necessary to do > their job. Near the end of the article he does finally discuss some of the > valid reasons for constraining users ability to install shiny new software > in order to be more "productive." > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
