Built in OCS archiving server capabilities should fill the gap for a while. Reporting sucks but there is a powershell cmdlet and now a report server template to pull data.
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Free, Bob <[email protected]> wrote: > they might end up with Akonix, Quest Policy Authority for UC or similar. > The issue has created a nice little niche market. > > > > *From:* Steven Peck [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:23 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Internet Policies -- Benefits of IM and Social Media > > > > *ahem* > If for instance one had saved a copy of an IM log and alleged harassment in > court at work and submitted this log as their 'proof'. It might be that a > company said a text log could be altered so it wasn't good enough. And it > might be that a judge had said, submitted under penalty of perjury company > and since the company cannot refute it the company loses. > > It 'might' have happened. > Recently. > > Steven > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > > It usually is. > > > > There are efforts underway to treat them more consistently, but today, in > industries that are not heavily regulated, electronic document retention > policies do not necessarily have to cover IM, whereas they *must* cover > email. > > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Murray Freeman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Are you suggesting that IM is treated differently than email under the laws > of evidence? > > > > *Murray * > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Ziots, Edward [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:48 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* RE: Internet Policies -- Benefits of IM and Social Media > > > > Jon, > > > > I don’t think that can constitute as Primary/Best evidence in a court of > law, especially when electronic communications is usually considered > “Heresay”, and therefore needs to be corroborated with other sources. > > > > Also: The evidence only shows a communication from the source communication > to the destination computer, and doesn’t accurately reflect the person or > entity behind the communications ( Anyone can refute there Login ID was > hacked, and it wasn’t them that sent the communications) and I haven’t seen > many IM packages provide two factor authentication, that provide additional > evidence that said user/entity is who they claim to be… > > > > Another item of interest with IM communications: > > Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 ( Updated in 2000) > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act > > > > Possibly monitoring or intercepting the communications, via IM without the > authorization for a wiretap could constitute a violation of existing wiretap > laws: IM conversions are internet conversations. > > *Telephone tapping* (or *wire tapping*/*wiretapping* in the > USA<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA>) > is the monitoring of telephone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone>and > Internet <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet> conversations by a third > party, often by covert means. > > > > While workplace communications are in theory protected an employer must > simply give notice or a supervisor must feel that the employee’s actions are > not in the company’s “interest” to gain access to communiqué. This means > that with minimal assumptions an employer can monitor communications within > the company. (Reason why you want these things in policy, and the users to > sign off on the policy, either acceptable use, or a system specific or issue > specific policy) > > > > Plus its a lot easier for information disclosure on unregulated IM that > goes outside the organization, which raises the risk of insider threat, > which makes you really think, was that IM project a good idea anyways? Why > are the bossess still allowing IM from 3rd parties to carry communications > and possibly the company secrets right out the door over networks they don’t > own to endpoints around the world. > > > > Just food for thought, > > > > PS: Disclaimer, this does not constitute in any way shape or form legal > advice, consult your company legal departments for further guidance on these > and all legal matters… > > > > EZ > > > > > > Edward Ziots > > CISSP,MCSA,MCP+I,Security +,Network +,CCA > > Network Engineer > > Lifespan Organization > > 401-639-3505 > > [email protected] > > > > *From:* Jon Harris [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2010 3:23 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Internet Policies -- Benefits of IM and Social Media > > > > One advantage of IM over phone conversations is proof of what is said in > the "conversation". Some times it is quite useful when you need to CYA. > > > > Jon > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Murray Freeman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It sounds like the telephone may become extinct, doesn't it! Our > organization is small, all in one bldg on one floor, so it's very easy to > just walk down to an office. When I get a help desk call, I always walk to > the requestor's office. The young man who works with me uses Remote > Assistance and the telephone. Here, an email is just as fast as an IM. > > > > *Murray* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Don Guyer [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2010 1:12 PM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > > *Subject:* RE: Internet Policies -- Benefits of IM and Social Media > > Agreed. As a department, we all use IM. I have coworkers in other physical > locations that I interact with all day. No one answers their desk phones, > because it’s usually a vendor or sales call. > > > > J > > > > E-mail is great for communicating certain things that require a record, or > are too long winded for IM, but IM is great for those “hey can you look at > server X?” conversations. > > > > $.02 > > > > Don Guyer > > Systems Engineer - Information Services > > Prudential, Fox & Roach/Trident Group > > 431 W. Lancaster Avenue > > Devon, PA 19333 > > Direct: (610) 993-3299 > > Fax: (610) 650-5306 > > [email protected] > > > > *From:* Andrew S. Baker [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2010 2:02 PM > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Internet Policies -- Benefits of IM and Social Media > > > > IM is faster than email is faster than a meeting. Personally, I prefer > email to IM, but I understand how and why people use it as a valid > communications tool. It facilitates quick, informal exchanges that may not > rise to the level of a full discussion. And both IM and email are easier to > schedule than face-to-face meetings in many cases. > > > > Social networking is just a prevalent, but semi-closed network where you > can interact with business partners, customers or prospective clients in a > way where the recipient has some control over who reaches them and how they > are reached, and the sender has access to some rich content without the fear > of antispam interference. > > > > All of the above means of communications are useful to various > organizations, even though abuse of them can waste time. But so can the > abuse of any other communications vehicle, including meetings. > > > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker <http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker> > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Murray Freeman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Well, as long as we're discussing IM, we don't allow it currently. But, I > have trouble understanding how IM is better than either email or a meeting, > or using a telephone to accomplish the very same thing as an IM. Can someone > explain that to me. Oh, we've recently adopted social networking for our > organization, but primarily for our membership. I'm having trouble > understanding how social networking will help our members too! > > > > *Murray* > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Steve Ens [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 04, 2010 11:42 AM > > > *To:* NT System Admin Issues > *Subject:* Re: Internet Policies > > > > It all depends if there is a business or productivity reason for it. We > use IM in some of the departments for meetings, quick conversations, etc. > But if it is used for wasting time, I would not allow it. > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 11:38 AM, John Aldrich < > [email protected]> wrote: > > What restrictions, if any, do your organizations place on things like IM or > social networking sites? I sent out a warning to the office personnel this > morning regarding the new “IM Virus” and got an email back from the CEO > basically stating “shouldn’t that be a violation of company policy anyway?” > and I had to tell him, I knew of no policies regarding that; and that in > fact, my former supervisor was fully aware of at least one person (who’s > child is overseas in the military) who used IM on a semi-regular basis. > > For this reason, I’m working on coming up with a company policy. I’ve > looked at the sample template from SANS as well as another one that someone > sent me off-list. I’m planning on incorporating the best of everything I > get, so if anyone has any suggested language regarding IM or social > networking, please let me have it. J > > > > [image: John-Aldrich][image: Tile-Tools] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
