While the content below WAS written from a work perspective, the very same 
points work just as well from the home. 

On Feb 14, 2011, at 9:39 AM, Russell Johnson wrote:

> 
> On Feb 14, 2011, at 1:08 AM, Michael C. Robinson wrote:
> 
>> 
>> As far as a fireable offense, this is a home network which I'm sure many
>> people have.  That said, what is viewed from this network is still a
>> concern.
>> 
>> On a non technical note, how do other people deal with addictive
>> Internet content whether it be: gambling, social media, or 
>> pornographic web sites (which includes hulu depending on what you
>> watch).  You can let yourself go of course, but if surfing certain 
>> types of content is a fireable offense at work, why get in the 
>> habit at home?  The Internet is not policed at all or pornography
>> wouldn't be freely available to anyone.  There is such a thing as
>> decency which broadcast television had mostly observed until recently,
>> the Grammy's tonight being a prime example.
>> 
> 
> Personally, I find that my own personal responsibility is very easy to use. 
> But then, I've been trained, and I keep my training up. Work is work, and 
> vice versa, Not safe for work content isn't viewed at work. The fact that 
> there's an acronym for this content indicates how much this topic gets 
> discussed. NSFW content is always on the radar.
> 
> Some of my places of employment have employed content filters, and most of 
> those were setup with a user usable bypass for the case of the false 
> positive. False positives are logged and could be checked out. Usually, the 
> content filter is in the IT closet, where it's under lock and key, so 
> relatively few people have access to it. Most of my places of employment 
> placed these content filters in place to block content that was accidentally 
> requested, as in the case of a typo, or during an internet search where 
> content was lumped into a search, but was not appropriate. The by-pass is for 
> cases where content IS work related, yet it is inadvertently listed in the 
> filter. I've had both scenarios happen to me. 
> 
> While reducing the amount of lost time at work is a nobel goal, is it the job 
> of the IT department to eliminate the chance that people will be people? I 
> think not. The fact that it IS a fireable offense is enough of a deterrent 
> for more folks, and those that it's not, do you really want them working 
> there? Are you really a baby-sitter? We're supposed to be adults, and you 
> have the ability to track traffic. If someone wants to hang themselves, they 
> will find a way.
> 
> Also keep in mind the words of Princess Leia. "The more you tighten your 
> grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
> 
> On another note about your inline filter. How are you going to stop people 
> from setting up their own connections to the internet? More and more cell 
> phones are capable of being tethered, and more and more are capable of being 
> wifi hotspots. Several droid models, and the iPhone of Verizon are prime 
> examples.
> 
> 
> Russell Johnson
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Russell Johnson
[email protected]



_______________________________________________
PLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug

Reply via email to