Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Wireless Networking > Need a way to see employeed surfing habits

Reply
Thread Tools

Need a way to see employeed surfing habits

 
 
+Bob+
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2009
On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:01:19 +0000 (UTC), http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (the wharf
rat) wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any website
>>you like as long we approve of it" management at its worst. Penalising any
>>bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions in
>>obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.

>
> That's nonsense. First of all, you have no right as an employee
>to use the employer network for any purpose not specifically allowed,
>nor do you have an automatic right of privacy.


Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job. It's not
treating them like captives who must be watched at all times.

> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
>you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
>employer liable for the subsequent civil suit. Don't blame your
>management. Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to profit
>from being offended.


As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set. Sure,
you need a 40 page manual written in conjunction with the corporate
lawyers. You don't need to monitor people.

In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
skilled HR lawyer.

> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
>security issues involved. Think of working for one of those three letter
>government agencies.


Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate
reason for that - it's not there to because of poor management
(although the military is hardly an example of good management), it's
there for security.

> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
>for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
>simply their control of their own private property.


You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
valuable employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
webster72n
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009


"+Bob+" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:01:19 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (the wharf
> rat) wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any
>>>website
>>>you like as long we approve of it" management at its worst. Penalising
>>>any
>>>bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions
>>>in
>>>obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.

>>
>> That's nonsense. First of all, you have no right as an employee
>>to use the employer network for any purpose not specifically allowed,
>>nor do you have an automatic right of privacy.

>
> Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job. It's not
> treating them like captives who must be watched at all times.
>
>> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
>>you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
>>employer liable for the subsequent civil suit. Don't blame your
>>management. Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to
>>profit
>>from being offended.

>
> As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set. Sure,
> you need a 40 page manual written in conjunction with the corporate
> lawyers. You don't need to monitor people.
>
> In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
> network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
> sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
> then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
> skilled HR lawyer.
>
>> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
>>security issues involved. Think of working for one of those three letter
>>government agencies.

>
> Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
> where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
> differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
> sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
> personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
> more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate
> reason for that - it's not there to because of poor management
> (although the military is hardly an example of good management), it's
> there for security.
>
>> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
>>for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
>>simply their control of their own private property.

>
> You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
> you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
> valuable employees.


Only thing is, Paul was asked to do this for someone, he is not the employer
and hence these speculations are beyond his scope. He simply needed
constructive suggestions (I am not looking for trouble, just trying to keep
it straight).
<H>.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
the wharf rat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
+Bob+ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job.


Stock options!

And a title. Titles are always good.

>As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set.


Well, no, not really. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, right? but
I'm looking right at West's Business Law Chapter 32 Section 11 and an
employer can definitely be liable for torts committed by employees while
working. There's a famous case where a cashier at Walmart got in a fight
with a customer who thought the line was too slow. Walmart actually had
a rule that said cashiers aren't allowed to fight with customers and fired
her on the spot but the store still got sued under the principle of
respondeat superior...

That's why everyone does background checks. They don't care so
much about what you might do to them as what would happen if they hired
someone with say a record of child molestation and you molested a child
customer... Lol, even if they have a rule that says employees aren't
allowed molest child customers.

>In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
>network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
>sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
>then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
>skilled HR lawyer.


Well, ya know? I have. Ha ha that's how I know the Latin
Also why I have West's handy...

>Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
>where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
>differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
>sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
>personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
>more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate


It certainly is operational security. It's access control.

Look, I've been ISSO and ISSM for half a dozen sites. Even
a site that just handles For Official Use Only does more than just make
rules. I mean, think about it. Don't you think an enemy agent would
look you right in the eye and promise not to leak information, scout's
honor? Lol So part of your job is to make sure they can't do it even if
they try, and another part is to monitor the network so you know if they're
doing it.

IMHO you've (all) got this sort of backwards. Nobody does stuff
like this just because they want to snoop, or because they want you to KNOW
you're being watched. The only time anyone goes through all this trouble
is because they feel that it's what they need to do to ensure information
security. That's a management decision and a management responsibilty,
and as an employee it's both rude and counterproductive to sit there and
mutter about fascists. You knew what the deal was when you signed up, right?

It's like going to a nudist camp (excuse me I mean a clothes free
resort . You KNOW there's going to be naked people and you KNOW you're
going to have to undress so wouldn't it be pretty silly to voluntarily sign
up and then complain that naked guys are looking at your legs?

>You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
>you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
>valuable employees.


No, I think you've still got it backwards. Loyal, creative,
motivated people understand that this isn't anything personal and
that it wouldn't be done if the people responsible for the success of
the project didn't think it was necessary.

 
Reply With Quote
 
+Bob+
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:50:19 -0400, "webster72n"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Only thing is, Paul was asked to do this for someone, he is not the employer
>and hence these speculations are beyond his scope. He simply needed
>constructive suggestions (I am not looking for trouble, just trying to keep
>it straight).
><H>.


Agreed... but the advice I originally posted is for him. Sometimes you
need to stand on principle. Other times you compromise for a buck.
Only Paul can decide what instance this is.



I
 
Reply With Quote
 
webster72n
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009


"+Bob+" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:50:19 -0400, "webster72n"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Only thing is, Paul was asked to do this for someone, he is not the
>>employer
>>and hence these speculations are beyond his scope. He simply needed
>>constructive suggestions (I am not looking for trouble, just trying to
>>keep
>>it straight).
>><H>.

>
> Agreed... but the advice I originally posted is for him. Sometimes you
> need to stand on principle. Other times you compromise for a buck.
> Only Paul can decide what instance this is.


I'll drink to that...

>
>
>
> I


 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:34 +0100, "Jon"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
> >visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I believe
> >it's called.
> >
> >--
> >Jon

>
> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.
>
> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.


Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
work done.

Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
productivity, loss of morale, etc...

As an example:

Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
across large building with many people isolated from others.

Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
current requirements.

We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.

They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
business needs.

Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
we implemented it.

The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
related email/surfing tasks.

All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.

For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.

During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
say, the following shift was swamped.

The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.

At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
abusers load....

We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
business hours, etc...

If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
hours/resources.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phillip Windell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
"+Bob+" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:34 +0100, "Jon"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
>>visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I
>>believe
>>it's called.
>>
>>--
>>Jon

>
> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.


What the employees are doing can make a difference,..especially when you may
be pushing the limits of your bandwidth already and some user is listening
the Internet Radio or watching movies on www.Hulu.com. Users will try to
get away with anything they can get away with.

I run ISA Server and can use the Logging to figure out what I want to
know,...but it is just a text of a bunch of log entries,..no pretty
pictures,...and that is fine. The ISA Reporting System (that has pretty
pictures) does not provid detailed enough information,...and that is fine
too (since I almost never use that).

However a proxy server or a firewall is a lousey "babysitter". We only use
the logs to know who the management needs to go have "a little talk" with.
At that point it is human to human,...not human -vs- firewall.

> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.


It is the employees who are supposed to be servicing the customers (not
management),...and they aren't doing that if they are messing with
www.hulu.com or www.hotcheerleaders.com all day.

Now we don't "spend our time" worrying about what web sites the employees
are browsing,...but when something becomes a problem and is noticed,...we
deal with it. Now when a woman comes in in the morning and finds a dried
stain on the seat (figure it out) because some guy on the night shift was
sneaking into someone's office (to avoid his own machine) and enjoy a little
midnight porn before he went home,...that becomes a problem.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------



 
Reply With Quote
 
Phillip Windell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
Kudos from me! 100%
I loved the story.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------


"Leythos" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
> have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
> jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
> possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
> work done.
>
> Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
> up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
> networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
> productivity, loss of morale, etc...
>
> As an example:
>
> Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
> across large building with many people isolated from others.
>
> Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
> current requirements.
>
> We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
> employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
> they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.
>
> They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
> non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
> limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
> business needs.
>
> Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
> felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
> contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
> place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
> we implemented it.
>
> The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
> was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
> business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
> that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
> related email/surfing tasks.
>
> All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
> end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
> given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.
>
> For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
> lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
> creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
> was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.
>
> During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
> emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
> processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
> say, the following shift was swamped.
>
> The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
> denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
> abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
> returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.
>
> At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
> without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
> increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
> comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
> management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
> abusers load....
>
> We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
> Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
> email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
> business hours, etc...
>
> If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
> hours/resources.
>
> --
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> (E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)



 
Reply With Quote
 
Leythos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
In article <uueaDF#(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
>
> Kudos from me! 100%
> I loved the story.


We see this in every location we provide IT/Consulting services for.

The latest one is a small company, 10 employees, they use family to
answer the phones and do some basic office work - they used a simple NAT
router and didn't want to use web-blocking of any type - said they would
not have a problem.

I asked the owners to let me install OpenDNS for a month, and it was
difficult for them to listen to family complain about not getting
personal emails, not being able to visit pogo, etc....

What was most telling what that they found MORE work was being done,
that they could measure, after about two weeks, and they had less
problems with your systems on top of that.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
(E-Mail Removed) (remove 999 for proper email address)
 
Reply With Quote
 
+Bob+
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2009
On Wed, 13 May 2009 08:06:36 -0400, Leythos <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
>without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
>increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
>comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
>management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
>abusers load....


You are failing to see the forest for the trees.

a. There are other ways to monitor production efficiency and quality
of employee work. Much better ways. Good employees shine and are
rewarded, bad employees are grown or removed.

b. You are measuring only the short term efficiency of the change
you've made. The long term effect on the workplace has been ignored.
ex. As just one data point, the effects on growing employees and
stifling creativity on the overall business has been ignored.

c. You fallen right into the Theory X trap. You are closely watching
employees, dictating what they do, how they do it, where they do it.
I'll make a WAG this company knows nothing of TQM. This is
manufacturing management from the 1940's. Do some reading about what
really successful companies do since Fred stopped using the
Bronto-crane at the Slate Quarry.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RE: OT Annoying Habits (Was: when format strings attack) Carroll, Barry Python 7 01-20-2007 05:56 PM
OT Annoying Habits (Was: when format strings attack) Carroll, Barry Python 7 01-20-2007 01:57 PM
RE: OT Annoying Habits (Was: when format strings attack) Carroll, Barry Python 2 01-20-2007 01:46 PM
Need "Proof" To Give to Co-worker About Browsing Habits & Spyware/Adware/Torjans/Viruses Sens Fan Happy In Ohio Computer Support 26 09-23-2005 07:09 PM
IE interpretation habits... Nils Weisensee HTML 3 03-06-2005 09:16 PM



Advertisments