...isn't labeling pornography as 'useless crap' a moral judgement?
Seriously now, no matter how empassioned your view on some issues,
Security is a job of objectivity. You can't bring down the gauntlet (no
pun, seriously) on someone just because they're a different nationality
than you. The same is true of differing opinions on the validity of some
forms of speech.
Step back a bit, and play a little devil's advocate. How would you like it
if someone of a different creed didn't want you visiting a certain website
because it supported a different religion than theirs? Would you accept it
as a right of theirs to tell you not to? Or maybe looking at a
competitor's website... the list goes on and on. Pornography, no matter
how legislated or ingrained into the psyche as being bad - is on equal
ground as the Vatican Website. Both are non-business related sites which
could offend someone if seen over the shoulder of a person surfing the
net.
I can't empasise it enough - you're asking for trouble if you bring
emotion into your job. Live the Vulcan ideal if you must, but emotions and
security never mix.
On Thu, 22 Jan 1998, Alex A. Smirnoff wrote:
> nuqneH,
>
> That is not "morality" that should be enforced. I care damn not too much
> about "morality". I just don't want the bandwidth to be wasted on useless
> crap like porno in my office.
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 1998 at 08:06:01AM +0200, Billy Verreynne wrote:
> > Norman Widders <winspace @
atinet .
com .
au> wrote:
> >
> > >Does anybody know of a comprehensive list containing
> > >inappropriate URL's/domains that I can use to configure
> > >CERN httpd with, so I can prevent users browsing those sites
> > >and block them ?
> >
> > >Fail http://www.playboy.com/*
> > >Fail http://www.*sex.com/*
> > >Fail http://www.*girls*.com/*
> > >Fail http://www.*xxx*.com/*
> >
> >
> > IMO there's a difference between implementing security control protecting
> > your network against abuse and attacks, and playing god and limiting people
> > to what they're allowed to browse and not to browse on the net.
> >
> > If you can not trust an employee to do his/her work and is afraid that they
> > will spend their whole working day surfing sex sites, why on earth was this
> > person employed in the first place? Am I right? Or does security include
> > gestapo meassures that does not have anything to do with protecting a
> > network?
> >
> > What is management going to decide to ban next? Maybe a few religious and
> > political sites they don't agree with. Or maybe the jobs online sites to
> > prevent them from using the net to look for other work? And where's is it
> > going to stop?
> >
> > If you want to stop people from abusing the web by surfing so-called
> > "undesirable" sites during office hours, simply release everyone's surf
> > stats every month. And let peer pressure do the "enforcing" for you.
> >
> > regards,
> > Billy
> > PS. Having lived in the old South Africa, I get pissed off very easily with
> > the "powers that be" trying to enforce their "morality" on the people.
> >
> >
>
-Brian James Macke macke @
telegroup .
com
Unix SysAdmin/Security Specialist Telegroup, Inc.
"In order to get that which you wish for, you must first get that which
builds it." -- Unknown
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
