[techtalk] Sick of surf and porn addicts

[Mark Foster]

At 17:28 30/05/2001 -0400, Martin.Caitlyn at epamail.epa.gov wrote:
> >> 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).
>
>I cannot speak for New Zealand, as I have never lived there or even
>visited, but I can say that I fully disagree with what you are saying, and
>I must say you managed to be just as disrespectful of opposing views as she
>was.  I have had the privilege of living in two different countries (I'm a
>dual national) and of having travelled the world and conducted business in
>countries with greatly varying amounts of freedom.  The US falls into the
>category of "free-for-all corporate lets-screw-the-public-fest" by your
>definition, and I honestly feel we have more freedoms here, and more
>guarantees of our freedoms, than any other place in the world I have been.
>I would rate our Bill of Rights specifically, and really our Constitution
>as a whole, as a model for guaranteeing the rights of individual citizens.

I can speak for New Zealand here.
Theres a piece of legislation called the Privacy Act (cant remember the 
date of the last revision) which ensures the privacy of our citizens.

However, per the example i posted here earlier, as long as the purpose for 
which the information is  collected is clearly explained - and contracted, 
in writing, so that theres no misunderstanding - then the employer has full 
right to monitor the employees use of their phones/computer systems.

My previous employer - a large teleco here in NZ - had a phone system which 
allowed live monitoring of all calls, recording of calls, emails were 
monitored by the postmaster, and web traffic was proxied.  Although its not 
a nice feeling, its very much acceptable.

Generally speaking its in the Terms of Service for any NZ ISP or 
Service-providing-internet that the usage of said service can be monitored.
Under the privacy act, persons are entitled to request all information 
about themselves held by any party collecting said information - and said 
information can only be collected with the knowledge of a subject, and said 
information can only be used for reasons disclosed to the subject, unless 
otherwise required by law.

Its a fairly decent system.  If youre at work, you should be using the 
resources provided for work first and foremost - any other usage of the 
network should not be detrimental to the purpose of the network (to aid in 
accomplishing your job) and where usage gets out of hand (porn sites) the 
employer has every right to track this, and bring the user to heel.

Thus whilst your privacy is respected - Im a firm believer in agreements 
where the employer knows exactly what they *can* monitor - and the employee 
knows exactly what *could* be monitored.  Nothing like having it over your 
head to prevent you from intentionally browsing dodgy sites. :)



>Most companies *do* trust their employees.  Most companies do not spy on
>them.  Unlike the London Underground, I do not have to fear from hidden
>cameras here.  However, if a company wants to get rid of me for cause
>(i.e.: theft of services, which is what we are discussing, or wanton
>violation of policy) they need evidence in the case of a wrongful
>termination suit brought by me.  The logs provide that evidence.  Without
>those logs I could rob them blind with impunity.


My job as IT Manager for this firm is to provide this monitoring.  I dont 
go out of my way to track all usage everywhere - but where things get a 
little weird looking, i have the facility to monitor specific things - and 
the employees are aware of that.

This is generally enough of a deterrant.



> > 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?
>
>Nope.  As an employer or manager, I can judge his or her output.  However,
>because of the legal protections offered employees in this country (which
>are a good thing, IMHO), I need to be able to document why his or her
>productivity is down.  If that employee, for example, is suffering from a
>serious illness, they are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act
>(ADA) and may have a legitimate reason for reduced productivity.  I have no
>right to fire them in that case, though I can insist if things get really
>bad that they go on disability until they are well.  However, I may have to
>live with reduced output.  OTOH, if their productivity is down because of
>theft of services (like excessive web surfing) I have a right to right to
>terminate them for cause.

I agree entirely.  I severely restrict which users and which workstations 
have the facility to browse the internet, primarily because theres a few 
people on the staff here who I *know* will get distracted.

Hell I know im guilty of it :P And noone monitors me - But I have 
performance levels i must achieve or I start getting strange looks.  I also 
have a given list of tasks to achieve and I know that if I dont achieve 
them, there better be a damned good reason.  Too Much Surfing just doesnt 
cut it. :o)



Cheers,

Mark. (Whos just allowed ;o)