[issues] Re: [techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts

[Penguina]

On Wed, 30 May 2001, James Sutherland wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2001, Penguina wrote:
> > > At 5/29/01 06:02 AM , James Sutherland wrote:
> > >
> > > >The *US* courts, you mean? I'm talking about *EU* law. That's the whole
> > > >point: this is legal in the US, but NOT in the EU. One of the few areas
> > > >the EU has got it right, IMHO - for the most part, I think I prefer the US
> > > >system (2nd amendment, better recognition of the concept of self-defence,
> > > >etc).
> >
> > Oh so now suddenly James decides to Be Specific.
>
> No - the very first post made it clear the discussion related to the EU.
> You then wade in saying "No you're dead wrong, it's not like that" quoting
> US-specific references.

Nope.  You were pronouncing the legal principles as though they applied
everywhere -- which, thank goddess, they don't.

> > But not while you're on my payroll, and not using my equipment and not
> > using my telephone, and not using my internet connection.  I, as a
> > private employer, have every right to monitor what goes on with my stuff,
> > including what my employees do with my stuff.  And if you want to store
> > porn on my disk drive, you can bloody well get your walking papers.
>
> Certainly not true in countries where citizens have rights (instead of the
> free-for-all corporate lets-screw-the-public-fest you seem to enjoy).

What childishness.  How is a company preventing its employees from surfing
for porn "screwing the public"?

> > Sure, if employees need to make the occasional local personal phone call,
> > to look up their favorite band or movie during breaks, and particularly
> > to read work relevant web publications and even local or international
> > newspapers -- yeah, sure.  There's a lot of benefit in that.  But it is
> > quietly logged somewhere.
>
> Not if you want to keep your company it isn't; recording phone calls is
> restricted by law even in the Unregulated States, though many states are
> still pretty lax about it.

Wrong again.  A company has every right to monitor its own phone calls
in many states -- New York, for one.  Look, you wouldn't let someone
come into your *HOUSE* every day and use your telephone at will for
whatever the heck they wanted to use it for, use your computer, use
your internet connection.

> > If the EU has its head so far up its hindquarters that it doesn't
> > allow private employers to monitor and regulate the use of company
> > infrastructure, then no wonder the EU is so far uh..."behind."
>
> Behind... yep, our bubble's much smaller than your bubble. Which means
> you've got further to fall...

Sorry.  We do our work in New Zealand because the employment costs and
overheads are a lot lower than the US.  Regulation less onerous.  Taxes
are lower.  And guess what -- even less of a bubble than the EU.

> > I'd tell that gal in Belgium if she wants to do the right thing by
> > her employer, but is hamstrung by stupid EU "privacy" laws -- log
> > everything anyway, perform the analysis, and simply be extremely
> > careful whom she shows it to and who she tells about it.
>
> i.e. don't mention it to the people whose human rights she's violating, or
> the employer who'll fire her for doing so, or the police who would fine
> the company into the ground for allowing her to do so?

WHAT BOLLOCKS!  It's not a frigging human rights violation for a business
to monitor what is done with its own equipment, on time it's already paid
for, and with its own bandwidth!

Rape is a human rights violation.
Detention without representation is a human rights violation.
Torture is a human rights violation.

Don't trivialize REAL human rights violations by lumping in "Anything that
Prevents James Sutherland From Doing Whatever The Heck He Wants To On
Company Time."  Sheesh. You're not a tortured political prisoner worthy
of an Amnesty International Letter-Writing Campaign just because your
boss doesn't like it when you surf for porn.


> > Um, help what?  Help build a culture of lazy surfing children who think
> > the world owes them a living because they know how to operate a browser
> > and a word processor--oh, and really think they know computers because
> > they've installed Linux somewhere?  We've already GOT that.  Sheesh.
>
> Better that than a culture where employers feel entitled or even obliged
> to spy on their staff, rather than TRUSTING them to do the jobs for which
> they are paid...

It's not "spying" for a business to monitor the use of its own equipment.

It's management.  Trust is extended to those who have clearly earned it.

> Think about it. Your justification is that excessive surfing harms their
> productivity - are you honestly trying to claim the only way you can
> measure an employee's productivity is to spy on his/her personal
> communications? If they have a proper job, you should be able to tell
> whether or not they are working properly without that sort of measure!

Another straw-man.  Excessive surfing is a valuable clue to performance
issues that can then be watched more carefully in those individuals.

Surfing for porn is particularly odious and inappropriate misuse of
equipment that the company has financed.

Productivity issues aside, misuse of company equipment is misuse of
company equipment.  Period.

Penguina