PDA

View Full Version : Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer



CodeMonkey
08-11-08, 02:35 PM
A buddy of mine used to have a PC that didn't work through his
employer's network but tapped straight into the internet (not sure how
that setup worked, so just bear with me). Recently, they moved from a
wired network to a wireless one. To our knowledge, that machine is
still set up with a direct connection (he uses an external computer
system and it doesn't work well with the netowork).

A mutual friend of ours happened to mention the concept of a packet
sniffer to him and now he's completely paranoid about using said PC
for anything other than the strictest of business. A day gets boring,
so you hit a few of your gaming forums, browse a bunch of news sites,
and maybe doing some instant messaging (GMail ftw!), whatever. No,
he's not hitting porn; he's bored, not a moron!

I've tried explaining to him that the only reason they're going to be
checking his traffic is if he's given them a reason to do so. He
busts his ass for the company, is almost always on time, works OT at
the drop of a hat, and is basically his boss's right hand man. Even
so, he won't so much as crack open his GMail now to check it during
the day out of fear of Big Brother watching.

So I ask: How likely is it that his IT department is bothering to sit
down and piece together his IM threads to find out about us talking
about Dr. Who's season finale? Sure they COULD do that, but does any
IT group turn that kind of stuff on by default, or is it only a "Yeah,
this is Jones up in Finance. I want to keep track of Larry
Riley...can you see what he's doing online?"

Todd H.
08-11-08, 03:17 PM
CodeMonkey <acuttitta@gmail.com> writes:

> A buddy of mine used to have a PC that didn't work through his
> employer's network but tapped straight into the internet (not sure how
> that setup worked, so just bear with me). Recently, they moved from a
> wired network to a wireless one. To our knowledge, that machine is
> still set up with a direct connection (he uses an external computer
> system and it doesn't work well with the netowork).
>
> A mutual friend of ours happened to mention the concept of a packet
> sniffer to him and now he's completely paranoid about using said PC
> for anything other than the strictest of business. A day gets boring,
> so you hit a few of your gaming forums, browse a bunch of news sites,
> and maybe doing some instant messaging (GMail ftw!), whatever. No,
> he's not hitting porn; he's bored, not a moron!
>
> I've tried explaining to him that the only reason they're going to be
> checking his traffic is if he's given them a reason to do so. He
> busts his ass for the company, is almost always on time, works OT at
> the drop of a hat, and is basically his boss's right hand man. Even
> so, he won't so much as crack open his GMail now to check it during
> the day out of fear of Big Brother watching.
>
> So I ask: How likely is it that his IT department is bothering to sit
> down and piece together his IM threads to find out about us talking
> about Dr. Who's season finale? Sure they COULD do that, but does any
> IT group turn that kind of stuff on by default, or is it only a "Yeah,
> this is Jones up in Finance. I want to keep track of Larry
> Riley...can you see what he's doing online?"


It varies from "almost certain because they're logging IM traffic
automagically and proxying it to the internet" to more along the lines
of what you're suggesting--auditing on an as needed basis if he's
screwing up in something else. Depends on teh size of the
organization, their risk tolerance, and IT infrastructure.

It also depends on what he signed in terms of paperwork when he was
hired.

I will share this though:

I know of a guy who worked for a large retail chain's front end
development staff. He had exchanged ongoing jocular banter between
him and a colleague that had a high incidence of Jerky Boys quotes.

It came to management's attention some how and they were both fired
for it. I don't have the entire story, so take that for what it's
worth, but there's reason to be extremely cautious with this.

Personally though, if my employer won't treat me like an adult and
allow me casual and resonable access to a personal email account
during the day, I don't wanna work for them.

If you want to keep them from being able to read your personal email,
that's where encryption and proxies come in.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Leythos
08-11-08, 04:05 PM
In article <1a8cdc56-3d08-43eb-a618-acda2f3d73b7
@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, acuttitta@gmail.com says...
> A mutual friend of ours happened to mention the concept of a packet
> sniffer to him and now he's completely paranoid about using said PC
> for anything other than the strictest of business. A day gets boring,
> so you hit a few of your gaming forums, browse a bunch of news sites,
> and maybe doing some instant messaging (GMail ftw!), whatever. No,
> he's not hitting porn; he's bored, not a moron!

We monitor all traffic on our networks, can see what images you browse
in sites, content of emails, etc... we monitor ALL traffic from your IP
address in the company. We do the same for all clients networks.

Reports are issued weekly to managers and problem children are
addressed, normally means firing 3% of the workers per year because of
abuse of network resources and failure to work.

If you're on a company network then use it for company work only. If you
want to screw around, go home.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
08-11-08, 04:24 PM
In article <84hc9rs3vo@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, comphelp@toddh.net
says...
> Personally though, if my employer won't treat me like an adult and
> allow me casual and resonable access to a personal email account
> during the day, I don't wanna work for them.

We documented a case of a worker sending 843 emails in one shift, they
were warned 3 times and then fired. Most of the employees at our
customers have little need for outside email, so it's easy to monitor.

We can run a report in seconds that shows User, date, subject, number of
emails per subject, number of emails per day, total emails per period,
in/out direction, who to/from....

We normally check for 30 external emails per week or more for people
that have no business using external email addresses, above that and
they are warned/fired.

With this and web filtering/monitoring, most places see an increase in
productivity, as high as 30% after the first couple weeks of enacting
the policy.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Skywise
08-11-08, 09:55 PM
comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
news:84hc9rs3vo@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> Personally though, if my employer won't treat me like an adult and
> allow me casual and resonable access to a personal email account
> during the day, I don't wanna work for them.

Who owns the computer? You? Or your employer?

If it's not your computer, then you have no right to dictate how
it's to be used.

Where do people like you get the idea that you have a _right_ to
use the company computer they way _you_ want to?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Root Kit
08-12-08, 12:44 AM
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:55:51 GMT, Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com>
wrote:

>comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
>news:84hc9rs3vo@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Personally though, if my employer won't treat me like an adult and
>> allow me casual and resonable access to a personal email account
>> during the day, I don't wanna work for them.
>
>Who owns the computer? You? Or your employer?
>
>If it's not your computer, then you have no right to dictate how
>it's to be used.

I fully agree, but that's not the point.

Todd said "if my employer won't treat me like an adult and allow me
casual and reasonable access to a personal email account during the
day, I don't wanna work for them"

That's a fair statement to make, as long as it is made openly. One
doesn't *have to* work for a certain company, and a certain company
doesn't *have to* hire him. It takes two to tango.

Skywise
08-12-08, 01:05 AM
Root Kit <b__nice@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:5a82a456p25f1t2qjdngrfcovqeqgjh141@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:55:51 GMT, Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com>
> wrote:
>
>>If it's not your computer, then you have no right to dictate how
>>it's to be used.
>
> I fully agree, but that's not the point.
>
> Todd said "if my employer won't treat me like an adult and allow me
> casual and reasonable access to a personal email account during the
> day, I don't wanna work for them"
>
> That's a fair statement to make, as long as it is made openly. One
> doesn't *have to* work for a certain company, and a certain company
> doesn't *have to* hire him. It takes two to tango.

Point taken.

It's just that I see so much on TV, etc... of people whining when
they get in trouble for doing personal stuff on the company
computer, as if it was their God given right that was just tread
upon.

But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
because they can't have access to their personal email from the
work computer?

On a related tangent, it just seems to me that too many people
don't respect other's property.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

mak
08-12-08, 04:49 AM
Leythos wrote:

> We can run a report in seconds that shows User, date, subject, number of
> emails per subject, number of emails per day, total emails per period,
> in/out direction, who to/from....
>
out of curiousity, what software are you using for that?
M

Jim Higgins
08-12-08, 07:58 AM
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:10 -0700 (PDT), CodeMonkey
<acuttitta@gmail.com> wrote:

>A buddy of mine used to have a PC that didn't work through his
>employer's network but tapped straight into the internet (not sure how
>that setup worked, so just bear with me). Recently, they moved from a
>wired network to a wireless one. To our knowledge, that machine is
>still set up with a direct connection (he uses an external computer
>system and it doesn't work well with the netowork).
>
>A mutual friend of ours happened to mention the concept of a packet
>sniffer to him and now he's completely paranoid about using said PC
>for anything other than the strictest of business. A day gets boring,
>so you hit a few of your gaming forums, browse a bunch of news sites,
>and maybe doing some instant messaging (GMail ftw!), whatever. No,
>he's not hitting porn; he's bored, not a moron!
>
>I've tried explaining to him that the only reason they're going to be
>checking his traffic is if he's given them a reason to do so. He
>busts his ass for the company, is almost always on time, works OT at
>the drop of a hat, and is basically his boss's right hand man. Even
>so, he won't so much as crack open his GMail now to check it during
>the day out of fear of Big Brother watching.
>
>So I ask: How likely is it that his IT department is bothering to sit
>down and piece together his IM threads to find out about us talking
>about Dr. Who's season finale? Sure they COULD do that, but does any
>IT group turn that kind of stuff on by default, or is it only a "Yeah,
>this is Jones up in Finance. I want to keep track of Larry
>Riley...can you see what he's doing online?"


Sounds like your friend has a job he's doing well at it. Why don't
you find something else to amuse yourself other than risking his job
by chatting with him while he's at work?

Todd H.
08-12-08, 08:05 AM
Root Kit <b__nice@hotmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:55:51 GMT, Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com>
> wrote:
>
>>comphelp@toddh.net (Todd H.) wrote in
>>news:84hc9rs3vo@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> Personally though, if my employer won't treat me like an adult and
>>> allow me casual and resonable access to a personal email account
>>> during the day, I don't wanna work for them.
>>
>>Who owns the computer? You? Or your employer?
>>
>>If it's not your computer, then you have no right to dictate how
>>it's to be used.
>
> I fully agree, but that's not the point.
>
> Todd said "if my employer won't treat me like an adult and allow me
> casual and reasonable access to a personal email account during the
> day, I don't wanna work for them"
>
> That's a fair statement to make, as long as it is made openly. One
> doesn't *have to* work for a certain company, and a certain company
> doesn't *have to* hire him. It takes two to tango.

Absolutely.

--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
08-12-08, 09:10 AM
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> It's just that I see so much on TV, etc... of people whining when they
> get in trouble for doing personal stuff on the company computer, as if
> it was their God given right that was just tread upon.
>
> But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
> because they can't have access to their personal email from the work
> computer?

Well, it certainly isn't a god-given right, but you keep your employees
happy (and thus more productive) if you allow them to stray every once
in a while. Provided they get their work done, that is.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Todd H.
08-12-08, 10:50 AM
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2008@planetcobalt.net> writes:

> Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
>> It's just that I see so much on TV, etc... of people whining when they
>> get in trouble for doing personal stuff on the company computer, as if
>> it was their God given right that was just tread upon.

I agree with this point.

>> But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
>> because they can't have access to their personal email from the
>> work computer?
>
> Well, it certainly isn't a god-given right, but you keep your employees
> happy (and thus more productive) if you allow them to stray every once
> in a while. Provided they get their work done, that is.

Yup.

For anyone that's worked in such a draconian environment, a fascist
policy and technical controls that prohibits an employee accessing
some personal email during the day tend to be just one symptom of a
much larger trust problem.

For many tech workers, it'd be akin to prohibiting a personal cell
phone on the premises, or having a strict prohibition against the
taking of any personal calls on the work phone line.

That's not to say there aren't job roles where such prohibitions are
required, or tend to attract workers that wouldn't get their **** done
otherwise. My work, however isn't in such space.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

s|b
08-12-08, 12:48 PM
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:35:10 -0700 (PDT), CodeMonkey wrote:

> So I ask: How likely is it that his IT department is bothering to sit
> down and piece together his IM threads to find out about us talking
> about Dr. Who's season finale?

In Belgium, if the IT department wants to check up on you, they are
obliged by law (CAO nr. 81) to inform the employee(s) about this
/before/ they start checking up on him/her/them. Not informing them is
considered illegal and an invasion of privacy.

Of course, the IT department is permitted to collect anonymous data. For
example, they can screen which sort of attachments are being
sent/received or look at which URLs are being accessed, as long as this
is done "global" and not on a personal level.

So, you might want to check what the law in your country says before
asking such questions in an international newsgroup...

--
s|b

Leythos
08-12-08, 04:47 PM
In article <pK9ok.191873$IP7.32320@newsfe16.ams2>,
into@oblivion.nothing.com says...
> But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
> because they can't have access to their personal email from the
> work computer?
>
We fire people for personal use of company networks, they understand and
don't use it.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
08-12-08, 04:56 PM
In article <84fxpaz104@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, comphelp@toddh.net
says...
> For anyone that's worked in such a draconian environment, a fascist
> policy and technical controls that prohibits an employee accessing
> some personal email during the day tend to be just one symptom of a
> much larger trust problem.

And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.

You're right about it being a symptom, it's a symptom of how few ethics
some people have, how people have adopted the mindset that the Company
OWES THEM A JOB.....

When you're at work, work.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
08-12-08, 04:57 PM
In article <g7rmad$t9l$1@aioe.org>, mak@nospam.com says...
> Leythos wrote:
>
> > We can run a report in seconds that shows User, date, subject, number of
> > emails per subject, number of emails per day, total emails per period,
> > in/out direction, who to/from....
> >
> out of curiousity, what software are you using for that?

We use GFI Mail Essentials at most locations, great product for
monitoring emails. We also log all emails (full contents) for medical
clients.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Skywise
08-12-08, 05:31 PM
Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2008@planetcobalt.net> wrote in
news:g7s5k0U4puL1@news.in-ulm.de:

> Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
>> It's just that I see so much on TV, etc... of people whining when they
>> get in trouble for doing personal stuff on the company computer, as if
>> it was their God given right that was just tread upon.
>>
>> But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
>> because they can't have access to their personal email from the work
>> computer?
>
> Well, it certainly isn't a god-given right, but you keep your employees
> happy (and thus more productive) if you allow them to stray every once
> in a while. Provided they get their work done, that is.

Hence it is a privilege, not a right.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying employers should be that
strict. What I am saying is that employees need to understand
their place in such a situation.

Yes, I browse at work. I try to restrict it to my lunch time,
and try to restrict where I am going. I never do personal chat
or email of any kind. Typically, it's just catching the news
or browsing wikipedia or the like.

I simply respect the trust my employers have in me and I don't
abuse it.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Root Kit
08-13-08, 01:23 AM
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
>documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
>day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.

Did you also take into consideration the possible loss of productivity
caused by unmotivated workers?

Not everything that's countable counts and not everything that counts
is countable.

>You're right about it being a symptom, it's a symptom of how few ethics
>some people have, how people have adopted the mindset that the Company
>OWES THEM A JOB.....

BS. It's just about the straight line between job and private life
loosening up.

Ethics is a subjective matter which changes over time.

>When you're at work, work.

Okay. So when at home I accidentally get to think of my job or maybe
come to think of a good idea that's job related I can claim an extra
pay for that or take a day off.

Root Kit
08-13-08, 01:26 AM
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:31:55 GMT, Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com>
wrote:

>I simply respect the trust my employers have in me and I don't
>abuse it.

A good rule of thumb is: Don't do anything you wouldn't want your boss
to know about.

Root Kit
08-13-08, 01:34 AM
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
>documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
>day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.

In many companies real hours are "lost" from smokers going to the
smoking area for a break. It's a cost / benefit issue.

Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
08-13-08, 08:03 AM
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
> Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers <usenet-2008@planetcobalt.net> wrote:
>> Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
>>> It's just that I see so much on TV, etc... of people whining when
>>> they get in trouble for doing personal stuff on the company
>>> computer, as if it was their God given right that was just tread
>>> upon.
>>>
>>> But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
>>> because they can't have access to their personal email from the work
>>> computer?
>>
>> Well, it certainly isn't a god-given right, but you keep your
>> employees happy (and thus more productive) if you allow them to stray
>> every once in a while. Provided they get their work done, that is.
>
> Hence it is a privilege, not a right.

If you carefully re-read my post, you'll notice that I didn't say it was
a right.

cu
59cobalt
--
"If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
--Mark Russinovich

Leythos
08-13-08, 11:08 AM
In article <72u4a45okm6v9kv9qsish4urvl087iaui2@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
> >documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
> >day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.
>
> Did you also take into consideration the possible loss of productivity
> caused by unmotivated workers?

Yep, and the workers that continued to abuse the system or attempted to
abuse it were fired. The other workers either maintained or increased
productivity in all cases. Overall, productivity increases in double
digits between no-blocking and proper blocking implementations.

> Not everything that's countable counts and not everything that counts
> is countable.

Did you take into account that before email and common internet access,
that workers managed to work while at work....


> >You're right about it being a symptom, it's a symptom of how few ethics
> >some people have, how people have adopted the mindset that the Company
> >OWES THEM A JOB.....
>
> BS. It's just about the straight line between job and private life
> loosening up.
>
> Ethics is a subjective matter which changes over time.

No, ethics don't change, at least GOOD Ethics don't change, people just
become more tolerant of abuse than before.

> >When you're at work, work.
>
> Okay. So when at home I accidentally get to think of my job or maybe
> come to think of a good idea that's job related I can claim an extra
> pay for that or take a day off.

Which changes nothing - at work you work.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Leythos
08-13-08, 11:09 AM
In article <rtv4a4t2rmo0i5m8rnhjsobagsgri51bjr@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
> >documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
> >day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.
>
> In many companies real hours are "lost" from smokers going to the
> smoking area for a break. It's a cost / benefit issue.

Yes, it is a loss, but, it can be controlled also.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

DevilsPGD
08-13-08, 09:40 PM
In message <pK9ok.191873$IP7.32320@newsfe16.ams2> Skywise
<into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

>But I have to wonder, would a person not take or quit a job just
>because they can't have access to their personal email from the
>work computer?

Absolutely. To me, this is simply a first (and obvious) sign of the
company's general attitude towards it's employees.

With most people, respect and trust go both ways, although there are
obvious abusers who need to be handled.

My current employer proceeds under the assumption that if the job gets
done, performance is appropriate (and your attitude isn't particularly
unpleasant) then you can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it
doesn't cost the company money or interfere with other employees.

Some people take smoke breaks every hour, others surf the web, some like
to take personal calls, some like naps. I'm partial to taking the CEO
and/or VP out drinking myself (I don't drink, but they're good company)
which can often kill the better part of a day (or three).

Some people just work work work until they burn out. From our
experience, the latter makes a great contractor, but a horrible
employee.

mak
08-14-08, 02:40 AM
s|b wrote:

>
> In Belgium, if the IT department wants to check up on you, they are
> obliged by law (CAO nr. 81) to inform the employee(s) about this
> /before/ they start checking up on him/her/them. Not informing them is
> considered illegal and an invasion of privacy.
>
Yes,it's like that in many european countries.
And if the company has a work council, they have to be present, while personal logs are being viewed.

- and that's where employees get the attitude from, that they think
they have a right to use company resources for private pleasure.


But if they signed a policy not to do that, they still can be fired for abusing their "right".
The procedure just makes a big fuzz and the employer is looked at as dictator, who doesnt't respect privacy.


And the funny part: if the employer allows personal email use per policy, then he is considered "provider of telkom
services" and therefore has to adhere to the same principles as any email provider.

What's next - the employee sues his employer for not backing up personal emails?

So I say: don't allow personal use of company resources per policy, install technical measures to prevent it, and then
allow e.g. surfing outside the office hours and for lunchbreak. Or install a couple surfing stations, that are separated
from your network and are being reset to default every night. They can use webmail - no need for pop etc. Chat? No.
Personal phone calls? of course.(the collegue in the same room will get annoyed pretty soon...)

And no, you can't bring your personal laptop into the premises.

just my 2c,

M

Root Kit
08-14-08, 04:16 AM
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:08:32 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <72u4a45okm6v9kv9qsish4urvl087iaui2@4ax.com>,
>b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
>> >documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
>> >day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.
>>
>> Did you also take into consideration the possible loss of productivity
>> caused by unmotivated workers?
>
>Yep, and the workers that continued to abuse the system or attempted to
>abuse it were fired.

If warned beforehand, that's fair enough. I'm absolutely convinced
though, that those who were fired weren't that crucial to the
companies anyway.

>The other workers either maintained or increased
>productivity in all cases. Overall, productivity increases in double
>digits between no-blocking and proper blocking implementations.

There are 3 grades of lies: Small lies, big lies and statistics.

>> Not everything that's countable counts and not everything that counts
>> is countable.
>
>Did you take into account that before email and common internet access,
>that workers managed to work while at work....

Did you take into account that the world is changing and mankind
evolves?

>> >You're right about it being a symptom, it's a symptom of how few ethics
>> >some people have, how people have adopted the mindset that the Company
>> >OWES THEM A JOB.....
>>
>> BS. It's just about the straight line between job and private life
>> loosening up.
>>
>> Ethics is a subjective matter which changes over time.
>
>No, ethics don't change, at least GOOD Ethics don't change, people just
>become more tolerant of abuse than before.

Ethics are manmade and changes over time. History proves you wrong.

>> >When you're at work, work.
>>
>> Okay. So when at home I accidentally get to think of my job or maybe
>> come to think of a good idea that's job related I can claim an extra
>> pay for that or take a day off.
>
>Which changes nothing - at work you work.

I'm just glad I don't work for any of the companies that have been
hurt by your old school thinking.

Leythos
08-14-08, 07:05 AM
In article <gat7a4tjv5msubuokqhbfjvcu2milp025j@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> >Which changes nothing - at work you work.
>
> I'm just glad I don't work for any of the companies that have been
> hurt by your old school thinking.

And I'm glad that you've not hurt any of the companys that we work for.

When you consider a double digit increase in productivity in every case,
that means there is a LOT of cost to the company that lets it continue.

So, while you look at it as a personal right, most companies look at
your "right" as a real cost to them, and since few people actually
control their personal actions at a reasonable level, it amounts to very
real costs to companies.

We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock
sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on
the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse
was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough
money - he was fired.

You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true,
there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a
number, get use to the idea.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Root Kit
08-14-08, 07:57 AM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:05:02 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>So, while you look at it as a personal right, most companies look at
>your "right" as a real cost to them, and since few people actually
>control their personal actions at a reasonable level, it amounts to very
>real costs to companies.

I never made that claim. Get your facts straight instead of setting up
straw men for the sole purpose of getting the final word.

>We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock
>sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on
>the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse
>was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough
>money - he was fired.

Of course. Which is way off compared to what is discussed here.

>You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true,
>there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a
>number, get use to the idea.

LOL. Thanks for making your view on human beings perfectly clear to
everyone.

Leythos
08-14-08, 04:06 PM
In article <bja8a4138sved56nqvi4mlj1v38o6025ej@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:05:02 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >So, while you look at it as a personal right, most companies look at
> >your "right" as a real cost to them, and since few people actually
> >control their personal actions at a reasonable level, it amounts to very
> >real costs to companies.
>
> I never made that claim. Get your facts straight instead of setting up
> straw men for the sole purpose of getting the final word.

I don't need the final word, but you suggestion that companies get more
productivity or better work by giving workers personal time at the
office is wrong. It leads to abuse by employees.

> >We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock
> >sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on
> >the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse
> >was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough
> >money - he was fired.
>
> Of course. Which is way off compared to what is discussed here.

No, it's clearly what was being discussed - we track it all and monitor
it all, there is no reason to be doing PERSONAL stuff at work.

> >You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true,
> >there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a
> >number, get use to the idea.
>
> LOL. Thanks for making your view on human beings perfectly clear to
> everyone.

It's not a "View", it's a documented fact.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Skywise
08-14-08, 09:56 PM
DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:3267a4d0jp72gn9vdop68c10jo76bs6pmd@4ax.com:

> I'm partial to taking the CEO
> and/or VP out drinking myself (I don't drink, but they're good company)
> which can often kill the better part of a day (or three).

What color is your nose?

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Todd H.
08-14-08, 11:19 PM
Skywise <into@oblivion.nothing.com> writes:

> DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
> news:3267a4d0jp72gn9vdop68c10jo76bs6pmd@4ax.com:
>
>> I'm partial to taking the CEO
>> and/or VP out drinking myself (I don't drink, but they're good company)
>> which can often kill the better part of a day (or three).
>
> What color is your nose?

Precious metal of some sort would be my guess. Particularly in a
lousy economy, it's never bad to have folks above you know you. It's
not brown nosing, it's just smart career planning. And lo and behold,
sometimes these folks are good company besides. Then again, sometimes
not.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

DevilsPGD
08-15-08, 09:17 AM
In message <kf6pk.145$2X3.54@newsfe13.ams2> Skywise
<into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:

>DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>news:3267a4d0jp72gn9vdop68c10jo76bs6pmd@4ax.com:
>
>> I'm partial to taking the CEO
>> and/or VP out drinking myself (I don't drink, but they're good company)
>> which can often kill the better part of a day (or three).
>
>What color is your nose?

I've been friends with the upper management and most of the seniour
people around the company since before I started.

*shrugs*

goarilla
08-15-08, 03:23 PM
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:34:44 +0000, Root Kit wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>>And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
>>documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
>>day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.
>
> In many companies real hours are "lost" from smokers going to the
> smoking area for a break. It's a cost / benefit issue.

omg an anti-smoke crusader.

in many companies real hours are lost from coffeedrinkers
gossiping in the cafeteria as well.

Skywise
08-15-08, 09:37 PM
DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:sl1ba4l12itmv1bdfsu0hd4m41717gu0u5@4ax.com:

> In message <kf6pk.145$2X3.54@newsfe13.ams2> Skywise
> <into@oblivion.nothing.com> wrote:
>
>>DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
>>news:3267a4d0jp72gn9vdop68c10jo76bs6pmd@4ax.com:
>>
>>> I'm partial to taking the CEO
>>> and/or VP out drinking myself (I don't drink, but they're good company)
>>> which can often kill the better part of a day (or three).
>>
>>What color is your nose?
>
> I've been friends with the upper management and most of the seniour
> people around the company since before I started.

Well, that kinda puts things into a different context then.

My apologies.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

Root Kit
08-16-08, 01:48 AM
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:06:16 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>I don't need the final word, but you suggestion that companies get more
>productivity or better work by giving workers personal time at the
>office is wrong.

That's your opinion. In my part of the world we increase productivity
by motivating people - not by putting them in handcuffs.

>> >We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock
>> >sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on
>> >the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse
>> >was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough
>> >money - he was fired.
>>
>> Of course. Which is way off compared to what is discussed here.
>
>No, it's clearly what was being discussed

We weren't discussing that kind of clear abuse.

> - we track it all and monitor it all,

there really is no need for your constant advertising..

>there is no reason to be doing PERSONAL stuff at work.

It's a tradeoff. You never made one single personal phone call while
at work, of course..

>> >You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true,
>> >there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a
>> >number, get use to the idea.
>>
>> LOL. Thanks for making your view on human beings perfectly clear to
>> everyone.
>
>It's not a "View", it's a documented fact.

Your "facts" are just opinions based on statistics and a sad view on
human beings.

Root Kit
08-16-08, 01:50 AM
On 15 Aug 2008 20:23:51 GMT, goarilla
<kevin.paulus@skynet.remove-this.be> wrote:

>On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 06:34:44 +0000, Root Kit wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 17:56:00 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>>>And for many companies, it's not a trust issue, it's a COST issue. We've
>>>documented many cases where about 3% of the workers waste real hours per
>>>day doing "Personal" internet things instead of working.
>>
>> In many companies real hours are "lost" from smokers going to the
>> smoking area for a break. It's a cost / benefit issue.
>
>omg an anti-smoke crusader.

Not at all. Learn to think dialectical.

>in many companies real hours are lost from coffeedrinkers
>gossiping in the cafeteria as well.

Thanks for supporting my point.

Leythos
08-16-08, 05:24 AM
In article <rvsca4l7pffd5gp8uguvh5kiu1gc2kqcj0@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:06:16 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >I don't need the final word, but you suggestion that companies get more
> >productivity or better work by giving workers personal time at the
> >office is wrong.
>
> That's your opinion. In my part of the world we increase productivity
> by motivating people - not by putting them in handcuffs.

The only UNMOTIVATED people would be the ones that believe it is their
right to use company resources for personal business, and those are the
type of people that most companies don't want.

If you have no expectation to be able to abuse company resources you
can't be unmotivated by not abusing them.

> >> >We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock
> >> >sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on
> >> >the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse
> >> >was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough
> >> >money - he was fired.
> >>
> >> Of course. Which is way off compared to what is discussed here.
> >
> >No, it's clearly what was being discussed
>
> We weren't discussing that kind of clear abuse.

Yes, we were, we were talking about detecting personal use.

> > - we track it all and monitor it all,
>
> there really is no need for your constant advertising..

There is no need for your constantly stating that YOUR personal needs
are more important that the company.

> >there is no reason to be doing PERSONAL stuff at work.
>
> It's a tradeoff. You never made one single personal phone call while
> at work, of course..

Sure, and I've asked before I did. The same would be true for personal
internet use - if you get permission then it's permitted, if you don't
have permission and just assume that you can violate company policy then
you're abusing the relationship.

> >> >You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true,
> >> >there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a
> >> >number, get use to the idea.
> >>
> >> LOL. Thanks for making your view on human beings perfectly clear to
> >> everyone.
> >
> >It's not a "View", it's a documented fact.
>
> Your "facts" are just opinions based on statistics and a sad view on
> human beings.

It's sad that you don't see people for their real selves, that you miss
all of the bad things that people do, it means you will always be part
of the group missing security violations that could easily compromise
networks.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

Root Kit
08-17-08, 02:45 AM
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 06:24:30 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <rvsca4l7pffd5gp8uguvh5kiu1gc2kqcj0@4ax.com>,
>b__nice@hotmail.com says...
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:06:16 -0400, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't need the final word, but you suggestion that companies get more
>> >productivity or better work by giving workers personal time at the
>> >office is wrong.
>>
>> That's your opinion. In my part of the world we increase productivity
>> by motivating people - not by putting them in handcuffs.
>
>The only UNMOTIVATED people would be the ones that believe it is their
>right to use company resources for personal business, and those are the
>type of people that most companies don't want.

Motivated people make personal phone calls now and then. Motivated
people visit non work related internet sites now and then to refresh
their brains. All people need to take a break of some kind now and
then - otherwise they burn out. Healthy workers understand that. It's
not about personal "rights" as you call it - it's about common sense
and human understanding.

>If you have no expectation to be able to abuse company resources you
>can't be unmotivated by not abusing them.

Occasional use does not necessarily equal abuse.

>> >> >We had one chap that was day-trading, and when we cut off the stock
>> >> >sites he complained, then we found, in the phone logs, that he was on
>> >> >the phone with the stock company for several hours each day - his excuse
>> >> >was that he wasn't paid enough and needed to do this to make enough
>> >> >money - he was fired.
>> >>
>> >> Of course. Which is way off compared to what is discussed here.
>> >
>> >No, it's clearly what was being discussed
>>
>> We weren't discussing that kind of clear abuse.
>
>Yes, we were, we were talking about detecting personal use.

Again use <> abuse. Your example of course is a clear example of abuse
and if management can't detect things like that without technical
monitoring it's just a case of bad management.

>> > - we track it all and monitor it all,
>>
>> there really is no need for your constant advertising..
>
>There is no need for your constantly stating that YOUR personal needs
>are more important that the company.

Which I haven't done, so your statement is nonsense.

>> >there is no reason to be doing PERSONAL stuff at work.
>>
>> It's a tradeoff. You never made one single personal phone call while
>> at work, of course..
>
>Sure, and I've asked before I did.

Amen.

>The same would be true for personal internet use - if you get permission then
>it's permitted, if you don't have permission and just assume that you can violate
>company policy then you're abusing the relationship.

No reason to state the obvious.

>> >> >You also eluded to only lesser importance people being fired, not true,
>> >> >there are no important people in large companies, everyone is just a
>> >> >number, get use to the idea.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. Thanks for making your view on human beings perfectly clear to
>> >> everyone.
>> >
>> >It's not a "View", it's a documented fact.
>>
>> Your "facts" are just opinions based on statistics and a sad view on
>> human beings.
>
>It's sad that you don't see people for their real selves, that you miss
>all of the bad things that people do, it means you will always be part
>of the group missing security violations that could easily compromise
>networks.

This is getting too off topic.

Leythos
08-18-08, 06:56 AM
In article <p6kfa4t78opqvgig84nn1vovce6uku2tb0@4ax.com>,
b__nice@hotmail.com says...
> Motivated people make personal phone calls now and then. Motivated
> people visit non work related internet sites now and then to refresh
> their brains. All people need to take a break of some kind now and
> then - otherwise they burn out. Healthy workers understand that. It's
> not about personal "rights" as you call it - it's about common sense
> and human understanding.
>

Motivated people often abuse company policy also, but that doesn't make
them good employees.

Most companies tolerate a little violation of company policy, but, if
you're going to use "Policy" as a means to enforce rules, well, if you
don't apply it the same to everyone then you'll have a hard time when
you fire someone for violating the rules that others are breaking, at
least legally you will have problems.

You're on the side that people should be able to use the company network
as needed as long as they get their work done. I'm on the side that sees
networks compromised by those types of people and believes that personal
use should not be permitted because of the loss of productivity and risk
to the network.

We'll have to agree to disagree on principals.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)