God, is this ever disturbing. And dumb. I get that your company wouldn't want its confidential information spread around the internet; that makes perfect sense. I work in a hospital. Pretty much all patient information is on computer, and it's against the law (and morally inept) to share it, but my company is too slow and sprawling and stupid to even think of removing email applications from the very computers that store that information, much less putting a 'no blogging' clause in our policy. I'm on one of those computers right now.
I'd get it if your contract had a 'no blogging about work' policy. In my heart of hearts I'd know that it was simply for liability purposes so they could cover their butts if some of their info got loose. But even then, it seems like such a sad and desperate idea. No blogging? Isn't this some sort of information systems company? How is it that they don't know how anonymous the internet can really be? If you wanted to you could be b/vlogging about all sorts of work-related things and they'd never, ever be able to find you. Now, if you did it FROM work, perhaps...but from your own home? It seems desperate somehow. And Josh has made such an important point: why blogging? What if it were something else? Under your contract could you not be a freelance writer (I use writing because their policy doesn't seem to take video into account) for a magazine or newspaper? What about a neighborhood gazette? Pennysaver? What if you independently published the journal you'd been writing in a green Trapper Keeper? Would that be okay? I'm just sick at the idea that you'd be forced to stop posting videos because of something this dumb. I totally understand if you do stop, but yeesh. What's the world coming to? I guess I'm a little naive, but I find it quite shocking. You don't even vlog about work! Also, it scares me some. I DO vlog at or about work occasionally. There's the odd video and then there's a seperate blog that's only about hardcore hospital stuff. It's got several unpublished entries lined up because I iz skared. The only related clause in my contract states that I cannot talk to the media about any hospital-related anythings. It doesn't define 'media' and is worded such that you walk away from it with the impression that they mean "when Channel 7 jumps out from behind the bushes with a microphone to ask you about a scandal, don't say anything!". Still, I worry. I'd love to know how many people on this list work for companies with policies like this. Is this common? Whatever you choose to do, you've got my support. That being said, I vote that you take it underground. Run off with Heath's idea, change your name to Ethel Pettibone, do whatever you need to do. Just make sure you let us know where to find your work! ;) Bekah --- In [email protected], "David Howell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ok. I work for a company where I am privy to vast amounts of personal > and financial information for both individuals and enterprises. > > My assumption is that they dont want that information to be published > on blog sites for anyone to see. So, to guard against that I guess, > they say the employees arent allowed to have blogs. A rather archaic > method, to say the least, of preventing an information leak on such a > grand scale that a blog would provide. > > Personally I think it's just a way for them to get their rocks off in > thinking they have full control over our personal lives. I in no way > understand why their rules are thus however if I break those rules, as > it states in the policy I signed, I would be dismissed from my position. > > Again. I take full blame and am taking the weekend to decide if I > really want to work for a company that treats it's employees this way. > I cant afford to be unemployed however this might just be the kick in > the arse that pushes me into the freelancing world full-time rather > than evenings and weekends. > > David > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com > > --- In [email protected], Josh Wolf <inthecity@> wrote: > > > > There's something strange about your company unilaterally blocking > > "advocacy groups," but I haven't the foggiest what you do, and have > > never worked somewhere with content filters so maybe it's all a bit > > more common than I realized. > > > > > > You state that the company policy is no blogs. What exactly is the > > purpose behind this ban? Would you be prohibited from writing a > > letter to the editor? Publishing a paper-zine? Making your own films > > that were distributed through traditional means? It's all a bit > > puzzling, you know? > > > > Josh > > > > > > On Sep 14, 2007, at 9:31 AM, David Howell wrote: > > > > > My sites dont have anything to do with work. However the policy states > > > that employees are not allowed to have blogs. Nothing further > > > detailing what type of blog employees are not allowed to have. Just a > > > blanket statement. I knew that when I signed the policy and agreed to > > > it. My own fault. I take full responsibility. > > > > > > I'll have to check that link out once I get home as according to > > > Websense here at work..."The category "Advocacy Groups" is filtered." > > > > > > David > > > http://www.davidhowellstudios.com > > > > > > > Does your blog have to do with your work? If not, how can a company > > > > tell you how to behave outside of your worktime? If the blog doesn't > > > > relate to your work, you may want to contact the EFF about this: > > > > > > > > http://www.eff.org/about/contact/ > > > > > > > > -- Enric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > >
