Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

  1. #21
    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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

  2. #22
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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)

  3. #23
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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)

  4. #24
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  5. #25
    mak
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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

  6. #26
    Root Kit
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  7. #27
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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)

  8. #28
    Root Kit
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  9. #29
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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)

  10. #30
    Skywise
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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?

  11. #31
    Todd H.
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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/

  12. #32
    DevilsPGD
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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*

  13. #33
    goarilla
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  14. #34
    Skywise
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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?

  15. #35
    Root Kit
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  16. #36
    Root Kit
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  17. #37
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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)

  18. #38
    Root Kit
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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.

  19. #39
    Leythos
    Guest

    Re: Likelihood of IT using a Packet Sniffer

    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)

Similar Threads

  1. Packet Loss And An Isp Whom Doesn't Listen!
    By UltimateHigh1 in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-27-08, 06:27 PM
  2. Yet another Intermittent Packet Loss issue
    By RaT in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-12-08, 11:30 AM
  3. few questions about my internet...
    By charlieC in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-08-08, 08:06 PM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-22-07, 09:11 PM
  5. Random High Packet Loss
    By jeredish in forum General Broadband Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-23-07, 08:51 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •