unclebuck

In the wake of recent threads (Scooby96, Saxoboy, etc) regarding unauthorised use of the net at work, it would seem like the managers themselves are being put under pressure to ensure abuse does not go on.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3701907.stm

I predict even more draconian network management in the months to come. I'm busy removing all mp3 files and other 'dodgy' software as I post.

You have been warned (as I have).....


UB

boxst

Hello

As I mentioned in the Computer Forum, I now use Remote Desktop to link to my computer at home, and run all the "dodgy" things I want there!

This is still tracable, in terms of the fact that lots of traffic will be detected on a specific port. But the traffic is not really visible (well, unless you know what you are doing).

Steve.

speedking

. Yeah right

How many employees have died because their employer failed to prevent network abuse? How can you even compare someone surfing for **** with a site going up in flames. Keep a sense of perspective FFS!

Goochie

I used to admin web usage at my former company. Our ability to do this must have been unknown by the MD who would surf the web for **** regularly in the evenings for 2-4 hours at a time. I did nothing about it as it wasnt hardcore or underage stuff, he diddnt impose rules on others and at the end of the day it was his company.

I dont see why people complain about not being allowed to use the web at work, you wouldnt complain when the MD wouldnt let you go for a drive in his Merc SL because you were bored would you?

Tiggs

"How many employees have died because their employer failed to prevent network abuse? How can you even compare someone surfing for **** with a site going up in flames. Keep a sense of perspective FFS!"

i expect more money is lost in ppl surfing than offices burning down!

T

Chris L

Yep - it's all about money (as usual). To be honest the technical threat of jail has existed for some time. The problem is that this is a real can of worms. It not just a case of having an internet usage policy and telling your staff, you have to keep them informed of every change to that policy - even undertake training to explain the policy and what it means to the staff. It is no longer just a case of having a policy.

This happened to RBS recently who lost an industrial tribunal case of unfair dismissal after the women concerned argued successfully that additions to the usage policy had not been explained. RBS appealled and still lost. This has set a precedent that makes it a nightmare for firms. I can see a lot of firms withdrawing personal use of the Internet all together.

Chris

ajm

Companies trying to save money is one thing, but if you legislate such that managers are liable for illegal activities of their staff that are nothing to do with work, just done using work resources, all you will do is remove the incentive for companies to report illegal actvities. What boss is going to report an employee for downloading illegal **** or hacking the FBI if they themselves may go to prison too!

Alan C

They won't bother. They'll just cut the internet.

Keeping a sensible perspective is paramount. Take the pi55 and you'll (not personally of course) ruin if for everyone else.

Have a 'sensible' personal policy. Use it in you own time (lunch, afterwork etc), don't download **** or other crap that can be used against the company. Have a word with the IT guys about the type of things you can and can't do as something like streaming video may kill the bandwidth and get you noticed FAST.

Keep it simple.

You may find that company without a proper policy or understanding of the net will re-act the quickest, hardest and unfairest when faced with a major breach.

Companies with a decent policy who let you know where you stand usually have a fairly tolerant and understanding IT Secuiryt Dept (I am that Dept!). Ask them what's allowed and ask them if they have a more 'relaxed' attitude after or before work. Can you do streaming vids at certain times? Get to know them, buy them a coffee (a danish goes down well ). It's who you know.. etc etc..

You have only yourself to blame when it all goes pearshaped and you end up in the crap.

Our policies are VERY clear and published widely and often. Don't expect too much sympathy when you stick your fingers up to it. Expect a lot when you've asked the guys what's allowed (as above) and something happens. They'll be happy to help out as it may be their mistake in breifing you wrong..

ScoobyDoo555

Our place gets around it quite easily. A firewall/filter that locks down everything remotely dodgy (it is a college after all)

You cannot get anywhere/anything naughty. The IT section did even lock down any search for prices (ebay etc), but realised (quite sensibly) that staff need the net to research prices for kit etc....

General vibe though, is keep it sensible. If you've got naughty stuff on your office PC, you deserve everything you get. After all, it's NOT your PC. You don't own it. The company is providing it so to help you do your job.

Just my 2p

Dan

Chris L

ajm - it's not so much your own company reporting you (although you could rightly argue they have a duty of care to do so) - it's when the authorities come knocking on your door after they've traced the IP address back to your gateway. They then start asking awkward questions - if you cannot come up with good answers and demonstrate that you have taken reasonable steps to protect and inform your staff, then you are in trouble.

Chris

ajm

That is one scenario, and one where they would need the comany's assitance to catch the culprit as a shared gateway is used by the whole company. The question is why would the company support them if they could end up taking the blame?

The article above is saying that those "who have both the power and responsibility to decide corporate policy and strategy" should be made responsible for what their employees are doing.

Now if that were the case, would you, as a director/IT manager/whoever, assist them in their enquiries, or would the material in question and logs disappear in a freak server accident if you stood to face charges for letting it happen? The incentive to assist the police in getting the REAL criminal is completely removed, because they have made YOU the scapegoat!

Once again we see attempts to legislate around a problem. Criminal use of computers is not the fault of those who provided the computers. It is the fault of the person using it.

I make the decisions regarding IT and acceptable use for our company. It is standard and reasonable stuff, yet someone could still use our computers to do something illegal if they wanted to. Put it this way, there is no way on earth I would go down for someone elses misdeeds!!!

StickyMicky

about time

LG John

I should stress for those that don't know that I was investigated for **** use at work but they found nothing because there was nothing. I suspect a few dodgy images linked into Scoobynet, etc filtered through and triggered the alarm bells.

Nevertheless I'm the butt of every **** related joke at work and they have still told me nothing officially. Joke or what

bloke

I must say an icon by the the thread title would be useful that signified the thread contained pictures as some BBS's do. As a muppets lurker (and occasional poster ) it would be nice to avoid the seemingly innocent threads which turn into one of Telboy's PVC fest's

TelBoy

LOL, is it all *my* fault now?!!

Seriously though, if pictures of the type i occassionally do post cause people problems, for the sake of the board i'd happily cease posting them, or would encourage some sort of warning icon as suggested. I know my own limits here, but how precisely does a pic in a thread impinge on others' usage policies? Or are we saying it just potentially draws unwanted attention from passers-by?

speedking

Agree with ajm. Company provides company cars. People speed. Fines arrive. Do the company get held accountable. NO! It is down to the individual and their bank balance.

If a certain manager's department had a lot of speeders then he may be talked to and dish out a b0ll0cking, but there is no way that he could be held legally accountable.

A lot of this stuff with computers is done because you can, not because you need to. Wasting company resources is a management issue.

We depend on the internet to research products, prices, view British Standards, etc.. It would be impossible to block everything and allow access only through a whitelist.