Personally I think the WSJ publishers have no clue and really want their operation to get audited but a few companies/groups that look for and report "pirated" software and files that do not belong. You know the ones music, videos, and others that were not paid for. It would be so sweet to see them get hit by a nice big fine including true up fees. That might get them to muzzle brainless writers that pretend to understand issues when they don't or at least reassign them to write about issues they do understand. Maybe it is a good thing that Newspapers are going under.
Jon On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:16 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > <rant>Let's see now, this innocent whiner wonders why corporate machines > cannot keep up with "trends". He is obviously oblivious to "trends" like > softare audits finding unlicensed (pirated) software on corporate machines > (and thus huge fines), having subpoenas for email (and then the company > getting clobbered because of a bad email retention policy, or that certain > users are using non-company email systems but yet claiming to be writing in > the name of that company, etc), the "trend" of trojans and bots becoming > increasingly sophisticated and are making their way into systems via > "drive-by" infections, etc. Related to this last trend is for the company's > workstations all being used in a large botnet for a DDOS attack, or perusing > file systems and sending things elsewhere... (He obviously believes all > firewalls will prevent all traffic inside the trusted zone from sending > confidential information through said firewall.) </rant> > > -- > Richard D. McClary > Systems Administrator, Information Technology Group > > *ASPCA®* > 1717 S. Philo Rd, Ste 36 > Urbana, IL 61802 > > [email protected] > > P: 217-337-9761 > C: 217-417-1182 > F: 217-337-9761 > *www.aspca.org* <http://www.aspca.org/> > > > The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments hereto, is > from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals® (ASPCA > ®) and is intended only for use by the addressee(s) named herein and may > contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not > the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are hereby notified that any > dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this e-mail, > and any attachments hereto, is strictly prohibited. If you have received > this e-mail in error, please immediately notify me by reply email and > permanently delete the original and any copy of this e-mail and any printout > thereof. > > > Jonathan Link <[email protected]> wrote on 11/18/2009 04:13:05 PM: > > > 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/> ~
