"Paul" <turnerp***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec82b2ee-5936-4ddd-9bdf-c78a3e2b18f9@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

"Paul" <turnerp***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec82b2ee-5936-4ddd-9bdf-c78a3e2b18f9@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

"the wharf rat" <w***@panix.com> wrote in message
news:gu9vdp$im4$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <uifhe7m0JHA.1***@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
> Mel K. <Me***@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>You need to install a Web filter system/appliance. Also, note that there
>>are
>
> He could use Snort for this.
>

"Paul" <turnerp***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec82b2ee-5936-4ddd-9bdf-c78a3e2b18f9@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

"Paul" <turnerp***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ec82b2ee-5936-4ddd-9bdf-c78a3e2b18f9@s31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query.  I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to.  Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary.  I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too.  Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job?  I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied.  I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated.   Thanks

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:immj0518hspnedggkthoi8tpejsq1b835c@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:34 +0100, "Jon"
> <Email_Addr***@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote:
>
>>Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
>>visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I
>>believe
>>it's called.
>>
>>--
>>Jon
>
> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.
>
> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.
>
>
>

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:immj0518hspnedggkthoi8tpejsq1b835c@4ax.com...

> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.
>
> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.
>

>
> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
> you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
> employer liable for the subsequent civil suit.  Don't blame your
> management.  Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to
> profit
> from being offended.
>
> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
> security issues involved.  Think of working for one of those three letter
> government agencies.
>
> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
> for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
> simply their control of their own private property.
>

>
> "the wharf rat" <w***@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:gucvr5$8fl$1@reader1.panix.com...
>
> > Actually that's less than completely true.  The legal
> > principle involved is called "respondeat superior" and imposes
> > a certain amount of vicarious liability on an employer.
> >
>
>
> Ok, well (unllike some of other comments I could mention) this is both
> interesting and informative. Not being a lawyer too, I subsequently found a
> good article on Wikipedia that explains this legal term 'respondeat
> superior'.  Hopefully 'Wikipedia' will continue to remain on the list of
> websites that are "approved" for the general masses ;-)
>
>
> Respondeat superior
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:4f1k0514641vn5b554b0a7t895tf0i41e5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:01:19 +0000 (UTC), w***@panix.com (the wharf
> rat) wrote:
>
>>In article <uROGgl00JHA.***@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
>>Jon <qwerty9***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any
>>>website
>>>you like as long we approve of it"  management at its worst. Penalising
>>>any
>>>bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions
>>>in
>>>obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.
>>
>> That's nonsense.  First of all, you have no right as an employee
>>to use the employer network for any  purpose not specifically allowed,
>>nor do you have an automatic right of privacy.
>
> Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job. It's not
> treating them like captives who must be watched at all times.
>
>> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
>>you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
>>employer liable for the subsequent civil suit.  Don't blame your
>>management.  Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to
>>profit
>>from being offended.
>
> As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set. Sure,
> you need a 40 page manual written in conjunction with the corporate
> lawyers. You don't need to monitor people.
>
> In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
> network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
> sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
> then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
> skilled HR lawyer.
>
>> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
>>security issues involved.  Think of working for one of those three letter
>>government agencies.
>
> Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
> where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
> differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
> sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
> personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
> more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate
> reason for that - it's not there to because of poor management
> (although the military is hardly an example of good management), it's
> there for security.
>
>> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
>>for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
>>simply their control of their own private property.
>
> You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
> you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
> valuable employees.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y
>

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:qibk051tgfeph052sr5lfbicom57dm7p78@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:50:19 -0400, "webster72n"
> <webster***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Only thing is, Paul was asked to do this for someone, he is not the
>>employer
>>and hence these speculations are beyond his scope. He simply needed
>>constructive suggestions (I am not looking for trouble, just trying to
>>keep
>>it straight).
>><H>.
>
> Agreed... but the advice I originally posted is for him. Sometimes you
> need to stand on principle. Other times you compromise for a buck.
> Only Paul can decide what instance this is.

>
>
>
> I

>
> > > Agreed... but the advice I originally posted is for him. Sometimes you
> > > need to stand on principle. Other times you compromise for a buck.
> > > Only Paul can decide what instance this is.
>
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.  Yes, I was merely asked to look into it.
> I don't really don't care what sites people are looking at personally,
> so don't give me a hard time about being big brother!  I'm just
> following orders.
>
> I have still not found a good way of doing what I need without:
>
> - installing a proxy
> - installing an app on the workstations
> - using a new router / firewall
>
> But I'll keep searching!  That said, I'll look into Squid - but to be
> honest I don't have time to start installing anything really heavyduty
> for this...

"Paul" <turnerp***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c237cd62-7617-4752-91c1-8f4b1a4ed882@s16g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Agreed... but the advice I originally posted is for him. Sometimes you
>> > need to stand on principle. Other times you compromise for a buck.
>> > Only Paul can decide what instance this is.
>
>
> Thanks for everyone's help.  Yes, I was merely asked to look into it.
> I don't really don't care what sites people are looking at personally,
> so don't give me a hard time about being big brother!  I'm just
> following orders.
>
> I have still not found a good way of doing what I need without:
>
> - installing a proxy
> - installing an app on the workstations
> - using a new router / firewall
>
> But I'll keep searching!  That said, I'll look into Squid - but to be
> honest I don't have time to start installing anything really heavyduty
> for this...

>
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:34 +0100, "Jon"
> <Email_Addr***@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote:
>
> >Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
> >visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I believe
> >it's called.
> >
> >--
> >Jon
>
> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.
>
> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.

"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.247481d38de108e989bfb@us.news.astraweb.com...
> Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
> have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
> jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
> possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
> work done.
>
> Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
> up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
> networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
> productivity, loss of morale, etc...
>
> As an example:
>
> Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
> across large building with many people isolated from others.
>
> Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
> current requirements.
>
> We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
> employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
> they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.
>
> They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
> non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
> limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
> business needs.
>
> Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
> felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
> contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
> place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
> we implemented it.
>
> The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
> was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
> business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
> that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
> related email/surfing tasks.
>
> All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
> end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
> given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.
>
> For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
> lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
> creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
> was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.
>
> During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
> emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
> processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
> say, the following shift was swamped.
>
> The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
> denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
> abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
> returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.
>
> At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
> without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
> increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
> comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
> management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
> abusers load....
>
> We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
> Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
> email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
> business hours, etc...
>
> If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
> hours/resources.
>
> --
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
>  drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

>
> On Thu, 14 May 2009 10:14:26 -0400, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <834o05p8jqb3nqcc84pgltrqscitvjg***@4ax.com>,
> >nomailple***@example.com says...
> >> You can thank me after you've expanded your uneducated brain.
> >>
> >
> >And you continue to show that you don't have real-world experience with
> >people or networks.
> >
> >I've worked in all the areas you mentioned, and in every one of them
> >there was/is plenty of creativity and great value from/in employees, not
> >one of them has a problem with the filtering and productivity increased
> >once implemented - you can't fight numbers.
>
> I can only show you where the light bulb is. If you're not smart
> enough to turn it on, then live in the dark with the rest of the
> mushrooms and fungus.

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:834o05p8jqb3nqcc84pgltrqscitvjggs9@4ax.com...
> Here's a major clue for you on the way: find out about positive
> motivation and what drives people to put maximum effort into their
> work, whether on the production line or in the office.  (Hint: it's
> not punitive conditions).
>
> Are there lazy people in the world? Yeah, a few. Most simply lack the
> proper motivation. You can motivate them your way with the stick: that
> gets them to do only the specific job you are measuring them on and
> only until they find something better and less punitive. Or you can
> motivate them with the carrot and turn them into valuable assets that
> you grow and retain (which they are, since you've already invested
> thousands in them just to put them on the line or into a cubicle).
>
> You can thank me after you've expanded your uneducated brain.

> In article <OxmapVD1JHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> bchambers@cable0ne.n3t says...
>>     I've a better idea:  Try educating yourself by getting a job and seeing
>> how actual employees and managers actually behave, rather than relying
>> on academic theories.
>>
>
> That's what we've been telling you - since most of us travel the country
> working for different companies, we have the experience you are lacking.
>
> Try working for places for a while and then come tell us that none of
> the employees abused company resources. It's simple enough to block
> access and it doesn't take much, and it doesn't impact the honest
> employees, only the bad ones.
>

>
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <OxmapVD1JHA.3***@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> > bchambers@cable0ne.n3t says...
> >>     I've a better idea:  Try educating yourself by getting a job and seeing
> >> how actual employees and managers actually behave, rather than relying
> >> on academic theories.
> >>
> >
> > That's what we've been telling you - since most of us travel the country
> > working for different companies, we have the experience you are lacking.
> >
> > Try working for places for a while and then come tell us that none of
> > the employees abused company resources. It's simple enough to block
> > access and it doesn't take much, and it doesn't impact the honest
> > employees, only the bad ones.
> >
>
>
>     Er...., Leythos?  Did you not see to whom you replied?  You're
> preaching to the choir.

>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:01:58 -0400, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <muvl05t1oq554e4ssr0kai7sqqiq0mf***@4ax.com>,
> >nomailple***@example.com says...
> >> The long term effect on the workplace has been ignored.
> >> ex. As just one data point, the effects on growing employees and
> >> stifling creativity on the overall business has been ignored.
> >>
> >
> >You are very wrong, having done this for decades myself.
>
> No, you are wrong. But don't take my word for it. Go educate yourself
> at Harvard, or Yale, or the Sloan school and see what they teach you.

"Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.247481d38de108e989bfb@us.news.astraweb.com...


> Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
> have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
> jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
> possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
> work done.
>
> Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
> up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
> networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
> productivity, loss of morale, etc...
>
> As an example:
>
> Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
> across large building with many people isolated from others.
>
> Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
> current requirements.
>
> We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
> employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
> they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.
>
> They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
> non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
> limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
> business needs.
>
> Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
> felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
> contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
> place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
> we implemented it.
>
> The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
> was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
> business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
> that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
> related email/surfing tasks.
>
> All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
> end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
> given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.
>
> For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
> lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
> creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
> was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.
>
> During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
> emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
> processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
> say, the following shift was swamped.
>
> The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
> denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
> abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
> returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.
>
> At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
> without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
> increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
> comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
> management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
> abusers load....
>
> We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
> Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
> email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
> business hours, etc...
>
> If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
> hours/resources.

"Jon" <Email_Addr***@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote in message
news:#DNMqqA1JHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.247481d38de108e989bfb@us.news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>> Bob, we work for many companies all over the USA. While most all of them
>> have AUP's and other rules in place, the managers could not do their
>> jobs if they sat on top of all employees all the time, it's just not
>> possible to monitor suspected abusive employees and still get their own
>> work done.
>>
>> Monitoring is a very good thing - it keeps productivity up, keeps morale
>> up, and it also spots abuses by employees that can lead to compromised
>> networks, sexual harassment, loss of intellectual/company data, loss of
>> productivity, loss of morale, etc...
>>
>> As an example:
>>
>> Large company (at least for us), 140 users, two shifts, spread out
>> across large building with many people isolated from others.
>>
>> Company had determined that they needed a third shift in order to meet
>> current requirements.
>>
>> We had been telling them that the email and surfing being done by the
>> employees was far beyond abuse of company policy and that we believed
>> they didn't need a third shift to meet their needs.
>>
>> They agreed to let us install Web (HTTP/HTTPS) filtering, blocking of
>> non-Business necessary sites, filtering and blocking of email, and
>> limiting email (external) to only those that required external email for
>> business needs.
>>
>> Yes, there was a lot of complaining, most of it was from the people that
>> felt the company OWED them the right to surf and email friends/personal
>> contact. Yes, there was about 2 days of getting the filters properly in
>> place to allow all BUSINESS functions, but most of it was ready the day
>> we implemented it.
>>
>> The factual reporting of abuse showed that more than 40% of the staff
>> was spending more than 1 hour per day, beyond Lunch/Breaks, on non-
>> business related email/surfing tasks. The factual reporting also showed
>> that 5 employees were spending more then 6 hours per day on non-business
>> related email/surfing tasks.
>>
>> All abusers were monitored for two weeks, all events recorded. At the
>> end of two weeks all abusers were confronted by upper management and
>> given the proof of their abuse, none were fired.
>>
>> For the first two weeks (apx), all but 2 kept their abuses to just
>> lunch/breaks, then, over a period of 2 more weeks, the abuse started
>> creeping into business hours and more and more time - instead of 40%, it
>> was about 20%, the 5 serious abusers were fully back at it again.
>>
>> During a single holiday break, one person sent (yes, sent) more than 800
>> emails to three people in a single shift - they were suppose to be
>> processing orders that take several minutes to process.... Needless to
>> say, the following shift was swamped.
>>
>> The 5 were presented proof of their abuse again, fired, unemployment
>> denied. The rumors go around, since they were no longer there, and the
>> abuse stopped for about a month, then, instead of 40%, about 10%
>> returned to abusing the policy - another round of firings was done.
>>
>> At this time the company is operating on two shifts, has excess capacity
>> without the third shift they didn't need, and overall productivity has
>> increased more than 30 real percent, morale has increased with employee
>> comments showing that people were really impacted by the failure of
>> management to force people to do their work, forcing others to carry the
>> abusers load....
>>
>> We've seen this say situation played out across the country - and the
>> Abusive employees always claim they have a RIGHT to check personal
>> email, contact friends/family at lunch/breaks, but they spill over into
>> business hours, etc...
>>
>> If you want to do personal things then do them outside company
>> hours/resources.
>
>
>
>
>
> The word 'abuse' (and its derivatives) appears a total of 15 times in your
> comment. Each time you use it to refer to the actions of employees and not
> once to the potential abuses of management upon their employees by
> installing such technology.
>
> The number one abuser in the workplace has always been (and probably
> always will be) management itself. So unfortunately your phraseology
> reflects a biased perspective, since you earn your income from enforcing
> such Draconian measures in the companies you visit.
>
> Technology that you may help to implement for one purpose (rooting out the
> 'over-surfers') can easily be flipped and used for far more invasive
> purposes (eg spying on + stifling the freedom of the innocent surfer).
>
> Ok you can wash your hands of that, count your paycheck,  and say 'well we
> only installed for that one particular intention'. In reality you would
> bear some of the responsibility for its subsequent use, be that good or
> evil, since you had the moral choice to either accept or reject such a
> project.
>
>
> --
> Jon
>
> Just Say No
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo
>
>
>
>
>

"Phillip Windell" <philwind***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23lpvN5A1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Just guessing,...but maybe Jon and Bob have been fired a time or two over
> abusing their usage rights and just have a chip on their shoulder.  This
> whole theory X & Y thing is just psycho-babble to me.  I live in the real
> world, and in the real world, people will do whatever they think they can
> get away with.
>
> Just my opinion....
>
>
> --
> Phillip Windell
> www.wandtv.com

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:20tm05l6cgpqg23i58jltc0mtjnhsq8i32@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:23:12 -0400, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
>>In article <ucpCx9A1JHA.1***@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
>>Email_Addr***@SomewhereOrOther.com says...
>>> Working for Wand-TV your vested interests are clear in perpetuating the
>>> myth
>>> of the suspicious "could-be-a-crook" employee that you in the
>>> corporate-controlled media are paid to exploit on a daily basis.
>>>
>>
>>Jon, my job as a network engineer and security expert is to protect the
>>company (clients) from all manner of threats.
>>
>>You appear to be a disgruntled employee that (like the kids today)
>>believes the Employer OWES you something other than a pay-check - they
>>don't.
>
> You appear to be an ignorant, home grown business person who doesn't
> have a clue about proper management. Classic "theory x - employees
> will are lazy and don't want to work unless closely supervised".
>
>
>

>
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 17:23:12 -0400, Leythos <spam999free@rrohio.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ucpCx9A1JHA.1***@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
> >Email_Addr***@SomewhereOrOther.com says...
> >> Working for Wand-TV your vested interests are clear in perpetuating the myth
> >> of the suspicious "could-be-a-crook" employee that you in the
> >> corporate-controlled media are paid to exploit on a daily basis.
> >>
> >
> >Jon, my job as a network engineer and security expert is to protect the
> >company (clients) from all manner of threats.
> >
> >You appear to be a disgruntled employee that (like the kids today)
> >believes the Employer OWES you something other than a pay-check - they
> >don't.
>
> You appear to be an ignorant, home grown business person who doesn't
> have a clue about proper management. Classic "theory x - employees
> will are lazy and don't want to work unless closely supervised".

On Wed, 13 May 2009 22:17:25 +0100, "Rob Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>"Phillip Windell" <philwind***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:#lpvN5A1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Just guessing,...but maybe Jon and Bob have been fired a time or two over
>> abusing their usage rights and just have a chip on their shoulder.  This
>> whole theory X & Y thing is just psycho-babble to me.  I live in the real
>> world, and in the real world, people will do whatever they think they can
>> get away with.
>>
>> Just my opinion....
>
>Possible. I was going for "still in college" myself but you could be
>correct...

"Rob Moir" <robspamtrap@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3699A16F-82E3-4865-A867-3B4AB8C286CF@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Phillip Windell" <philwind***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:#lpvN5A1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Just guessing,...but maybe Jon and Bob have been fired a time or two over
>> abusing their usage rights and just have a chip on their shoulder.  This
>> whole theory X & Y thing is just psycho-babble to me.  I live in the real
>> world, and in the real world, people will do whatever they think they can
>> get away with.
>>
>> Just my opinion....
>
> Possible. I was going for "still in college" myself but you could be
> correct...

"+Bob+" <nomailple***@example.com> wrote in message
news:immj0518hspnedggkthoi8tpejsq1b835c@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:34 +0100, "Jon"
> <Email_Addr***@SomewhereOrOther.com> wrote:
>
>>Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
>>visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I
>>believe
>>it's called.
>>
>>--
>>Jon
>
> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.
>
> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.