Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: i-cap proposals
From: "Paul D. Robertson" <paul () compuwar net>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 10:58:04 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, ArkanoiD wrote:
Ok, the bottom line is: i prefer implemented and working security policy over "ideal" one that is being constantly violated. And - accessing
If your policy is constantly being violated, you have larger problems- changing to a more "popular" policy won't fix the underlying issue.
external email server with proper content inspection in place implements exactly the same filtering policy local server does, so i doubt the risk is higher, and it brings a feature to separate corporate email from personal, which is often useful.
This depends on your environment- in most U.S. corporate environments, the risk is higher, because people tend to get things in personal mail which aren't appropriate for the workplace, and which may contribute to a hostile workplace claim.
Non-performance issues. Hah! You really do think someone will work more efficient if you just prohibit him from spending work time on non-business issues? I say plain NO. Any decent book on managing IT
No, I think that being able to show that they're not spending company time on non-work issues is significantly easier when they're not allowed to access personal computing resources, I think that monitoring for compliance becomes significantly less tricky in regards to privacy issues, and I think that if you do have a problem, being able to fully investigate the problem without having to file lawsuits to get to the information is much, much simpler- and fraught with less murky gray areas in regards to privacy, competition, appropriate usage, exposing employees to a hostile environment, etc.
projects states it works exactly reverse.
Terminating someone for non-performance is much different than having an employee who doesn't perform. What you can look at, under what circumstances you can investigate, and how you measure policy compliance all change significantly when non-company resources come into play. There's also the open question of third-party privacy and liability concerns- if I'm taking action against someone for non-performance based on personal e-mails (say running a side business from their desktop- since I've seen that one in practice)- now I'm suddenly potentially exposing the third parties who e-mail them to investigation, while they're assuming that the communication is between them and the individual who's account it is- depending on the circumstances, that can be a _huge_ problem. However, I will categorically state that the places I've been where folks don't allow personal access and where they do monitor for compliance have significantly less "recreational" activity going on during business hours. But then those places don't have issues with non-compliance because they don't change the policy if it isn't popular, they change the employee if they can't comply. Paul ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paul D. Robertson "My statements in this message are personal opinions paul () compuwar net which may have no basis whatsoever in fact." _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 11)
- RE: i-cap proposals lordchariot (Feb 12)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 14)
- Re: i-cap proposals Carson Gaspar (Feb 19)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 19)
- Re: i-cap proposals Paul D. Robertson (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals Paul D. Robertson (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals Paul D. Robertson (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals Paul D. Robertson (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals Paul D. Robertson (Feb 22)
- Re: i-cap proposals ArkanoiD (Feb 14)
- RE: i-cap proposals lordchariot (Feb 12)
- Re: i-cap proposals Julian Gomez (Feb 22)