Seems that this is a very hot issue counting the number of replies with
good advice to the originator. So I might as well give my personal view
to the issue.
First of all I regard the information on the internet as a new business
tool and the responsibility of whether people in a company should have
access should therefore be in the hands of the business managers. If
they estimate access would be a benefit for their part of the business,
they should make internet available to their employees, not restricting
people from access to various servers. But it MUST always be a business
decision.
The only difference between surfing the internet and reading various
personal newspapers, magazines and books during office hours (whether
they are pornographic or not) is, that surfing cost more money for the
company.
So it must be the business managers responsibility to make sure that
his/her employees are still doing their job properly after a connection
to internet.
Of course you should make an internet policy containing guidelines and
'code of conduct' for using the net.
I believe, that once a month, the business manager should receive
statistics showing the amount of time his businessunit has spent on the
internet within the last month, along with a calculation of the cost
involved for using the internet that month. This will give him an
indication whether his employees spend to much time surfing. If so, the
manager could request statistic per user and 'grab the bull by the horn'
immediately.
>----------
>From: cdavisso @
teir .
com[SMTP:cdavisso @
teir .
com]
>Sent: 17. september 1996 14:10
>To: firewalls @
greatcircle .
com
>Subject: Re: Internet policy
>
>On Sep 16, 7:41pm, potlicker @
morebbs .
com wrote:
>> Subject: Internet policy
>>
>> The obvious approach would be to block access to the porno sites on their
>> firewalls. How do other companies handle this issue?
>> PoT_LiCkEr
>>
>>-- End of excerpt from potlicker @
morebbs .
com
>
>I suppose you could block all, presumably, http access to the Internet from
>inside systems except for a proxy server and then force the users to use a
>proxy server that logs all connections. If you let it be known that all
>connections are logged, that *might* curtail some of the traffic. Of course
>you'd want a policy that states something along the lines of "XYZ corp.
>computers are to be used solely for XYZ Corp. business,...", etc.
>
>Then there's a company that I read about in a trade rag months ago. They
>actually published in a company newsletter, the sites that various internal
>systems had connected to!
>
>But then you end up with the porno sites changing names, trying to keep up on
>the new names, and you still can't tell what's contained in a file called
>"wow.gif". You just end up with a temporary reduction until people find a
>way
>around it. Blocking specific sites sounds like it could turn into a major
>undertaking.
>
>Just some random thoughts,
>
>Chuck Davisson
>TEIR
>****
>The above does not in any way represent the views or policies of TEIR and are
>completely my own opinions
>***
>
>
>
>
>--
>=================================
>I've no doubt the devil grins,
>As seas of ink I spatter.
>Ye gods forgive my literary sins,
>The other kind don't matter.
>
> - Robert W. Service
>
>
Follow-Ups:
|
|
