Here is my 2 cents on this subject:
It is the responsibility of Company management to define a policy in
which it's employees function and decide how that policy will be
implemented. At CNYRTA, we have a written users policy that
specifically forbids the access of pornographic or offensive material,
or any material which a co-worker may find offensive.
This policy is enforced 2 ways. First, as MIS Manager, I implement our
http: access policy using our firewall system. I do not restrict any
site, but I log all outbound http requests and can review that log from
time to time. If I see a dramatic increase in access to what I believe
are pornographic sites, I send an e-mail to all users stating this
increase and remind them of the policy and the punishment for it's
violation (which includes termination). Therefore, the company has
proper documentation that the behavior is not acceptable and that all
employees are notified on the occasion of first getting network access,
and again when an increase in restricted activity is detected. After
the e-mail, activity tends to drop off.
Second, I take the time to remind the managers and employees at all
levels why the company has made the investment to have access to the
Internet, and train network users in the proper business use of the
access. Luckily, I work for a relatively small company, so this plan is
fairly easy to implement.
I believe it is unreasonable for network professionals to be asked to
become the "thought police" for an organization. However, We are the
providers of necessary tools, and it falls to us to insure the tool is
used to the benefit of the organization.
John B. Rajunas
MIS Manager
Central NY Regional Transportation Authority
Syracuse, NY USA
>----------
>From: Ziv Dascalu[SMTP:ziv @
AbirNet .
com]
>Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 1997 9:18 AM
>To: Richard A. Hill; firewalls @
GreatCircle .
COM
>Subject: Re: Need to restrict http://www.nude.com and such
>
>
>--- On Tue, 06 May 1997 02:13:13 -0400 "Richard A. Hill"
><rhill @
icenetsys .
com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, I'll add my two cents worth in brief.
>> Unless you are experiencing complaints of email-harrassment, or you have
>> incidents of "offensive" material being displayed to persons who do now
>>wish
>> to see it, It is ALWAYS going to cost more in time and energy to play
>> facist, than you will save.
>> I have a personal dislike for any kind of censorship that is not
>> specifically aimed at curbing harrassment. I feel that if your employees,
>> co-workers, or whatever are being productive and doing their jobs at
>> expected (or better) levels, then you are getting what you pay them for.
>> Enough ! Their privacy overrules any sqeamish desire of yours to play Papa.
>> (or Mama ..)
>>
>> Over the last year, I watched a harassment accusation at a former
>>employer's
>> almost blow up into an expensive court case, but for some common sense from
>> a judge:
>> "You say he has offensive materials on the walls of his office?"
>> "yes"
>> "Do you work in his office ?"
>> "no"
>> "Can you see this material from outside the office ?"
>> "no"
>> "Do you ever have to go into his office as part of your job, or has he
>> ever asked you into his office ?"
>> "no"
>> "Well then; I think I have the solution. Don't go into his office"
>> "But I don't think he should have those pictures on the walls"
>> "And I don't think this case belongs in court, but we can't get all we
>> want, now can we."
>> {Above is very close to actual dialogue"
>>
>> By all means, set up logging and tracking procedures to be used if a
>> harassment or similar complaint is brought, as well as evidencing a policy
>> of not tolerating sexual bullies, but stay out of other peoples lives as
>> much as possible. As has already been said, if you are editing content,
>>you
>> risk being held responsible for what you let through, as much as what you
>>do
>> not.
>>
>> I know this goes against our growing "Big-Brother" syndrome of protecting
>> people against themselves, but I'll always choose freedom over order
>>
>>
>> Richard
>>
>
>WWW browsing may create a situation where the company site name will be
>logged on
>a publicly accessed list of sites that have accessed that specific site.
>some want to prevent this.
>on NNTP posting there is a liability for the employer for what postings are
>done by
>his employees
>
>Ziv Dascalu
>ABIRNET Active Network Protection http://www.AbirNet.com
>
>
|
|
