Mike Stoico <mstoico @
metlife .
com> echoed the concerns of Leon O'Brien
<leon @
networx .
com .
au> when he wrote:
>... my concern is that if I monitor only a part of the sites that my users go
>to and someone goes to a site I have not monitored that I wouldn't have a
>legal leg to stand on.
You don't _need_ a legal leg. Whatever the eventual outcome of the
Prodigy suit (where a firm alleged they had been damaged by a subscriber's
post) the role and responsibilities of a CIO or corporate manager who
chooses to restrict access to certain Internet resources is entirely
different from those of a publisher or (perhaps) an Online Service Provider
like Cserve, Prodigy, et al. Sorting or restricting incoming data files
could possibly be awkward if employees had a _right_ to unlimited access to
the Net, but today that's just a silly proposition in any of our various
countries.
Whether attempts to censor or restrict employee surfing are
sensible or practical is a different issue. I tend to feel those who keep
and publicize a record of workplace web accesses -- including XXX-sites or
sports sites (a relatively larger problem in most companies) -- set up
conditions where it can be controlled, if necessary, by local management.
(Mind you: Selective censorship on the basis of political or religious
creeds, or union activity, e.g., could raise mucky issues on the other
side. Managers who run amuck with their oversight responsibility could
potentially get a firm in dutch too.)
One of the most trustworthy guidelines: It's dangerous, and often
counterproductive, to try to address what should be political or personnel
issues with technical fixes.
Suerte,
_Vin
Vin McLellan +The Privacy Guild+ <vin @
shore .
net>
53 Nichols St., Chelsea, Ma. 02150 USA Tel: (617) 884-5548
<*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*><*>
|
|
