Social Enterprise investigate

CIOs say IT should not block social media sites

A new report shows 6.8% of Internet visits in businesses go to Facebook. Still, TechRepublic's CIO Jury says IT shouldn't block social media. Learn why.

A new report shows that 6.8% of all Internet visits in businesses are going to Facebook. Still, TechRepublic's CIO Jury says IT shouldn't block social media.

On April 16, TechRepublic polled its 100-member panel of U.S. IT executives and asked, "Should IT block social networking sites?" The jury, made up of the first 12 respondents, came through with eight "No" votes and four "Yes" votes.

TechRepublic's CIO Jury is based on the original CIO Jury concept developed by Silicon.com, where you can find lively opinions from IT leaders based in the UK.

This verdict probably surprises most of you -- it certainly surprised me -- since IT tends to have a reputation for preferring the command-and-control environment of the 1990s, before consumer technologies and Web 2.0 invaded the workplace.

However, there are definitely some nuances to our CIO panel rejecting the idea of filtering social media sites. There's still a pretty big group of IT leaders who prefer to completely filter all of these sites. And, even among the ones who don't want to totally filter it, many of them believe in some selective filtering.

The proponents of filtering believe that there's little to no business value to any of the social media sites, and therefore blocking them is a no-brainer.

"They are predominantly used for non-business activities," said Matthew Metcalfe, Director of IS for Northwest Exterminating.

"We block all social networking sites. There is no company or work related value in these sites whatsoever," said Dave Schartel, Director of IT for Home Health Care Management.

"It amounts to misuse of the public's resources. We're a public corporation," said Tim Stiles, CIO of Bremerton Housing Authority.

James Riner, CIO of R & R Images, said, "The risks, both security and perceptual, are far too great to allow unfettered access [to social networking sites] to all employees.  Only those whose job focus is social marketing should be accessing such sites during business hours or from business-owned resources."

So here's where it starts to get interesting. Even some of those who believe in blocking think there should be some exceptions, and even some of those who think blocking everything is not the answer believe that some blocking is necessary.

"IT should, by default, block social networking sites," said Jeff Canon, CIO of Fire and Life Safety America. "IT should create a framework to manage access and work with business line managers in determining the risk and business need. For example, it may make sense for the sales team to access Linkedin. It could also make sense for the marketing and promotions department to access Facebook or Twitter. It probably does not make sense for an accounts payable clerk to have access to Facebook. Another recent survey found that some employees in their sample used social networking sites as much as two hours a day at work. Within that same sample, 87% of those using Facebook said they had no clear business reason for accessing the network."

John Gracyalny, Director of IT for SafeAmerica Credit Union, said, "It should be done on a user-by-user basis. At our shop we have deployed a black box to control Internet use. Staff are limited to a specific 'white list' of sites that pertain to their job function, as defined by their department head, and all other sites are blocked. Mid-managers generally have more latitude, and execs have no restrictions other than global HR-type filters, (e.g. we block porn sites to the entire organization). Two staff members have no restrictions based on their job function, but their usages reports must be reviewed and approved both by their department head and myself on a monthly basis."

However, Lance Taylor-Warren, CIO of H.A.W.C. Community Health Centers, brought up one of the challenges IT faces once it starts doing selective filtering. He said, "Yes, social networking sites should be blocked for personal use, but if a company is using it for business use it makes it very hard to keep them separate. This will continue to be a problem that IT staff will face for the forseeable future."

Michael Spears, CIO of the NCCI, argued against this type of blocking as a general policy. He said, "Absent applications that raise security concerns, you need to manage productivity by managing - not through security. Let's not treat this like the advent of the phone or the internet. "

Another naysayer of blocking, Jerry Justice, IT Director of SS&G Financial Services, said, "No. We must monitor and adapt security models to a Web 2.0 world."

Scott Lowe, CIO of Westminster College, added, "No to blocking, but there should be a 'reasonable use' policy in place."

Chris Zalegowski, Director of IT for DEKA Research & Development, suggested a more specific approach: "I think you should find out first what the percentage is in your company (and equate that to dollars and/or lost time). Looking at an estimated national average is not a call to action to block the site but it should be reviewed internally. If you find out the average employee is spending an overabundance amount of time on social networking sites (and/or there is proven productivity loss), then yes blocking the site should be a consideration. If your company uses these sites as a marketing tool or customer interaction tool, then blocking it becomes harder to warrant."

TechRepublic's CIO Jury on this topic was:

  1. Laurie Dale, Director of IT for Ability Beyond Disabilty
  2. Randy Krzyston, Director of IT for Thomas Jefferson School of Law
  3. Michael Spears, CIO of National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI)
  4. James Riner, CIO of R & R Images
  5. David Van Geest, Director of IT for The Orsini Group
  6. Michael Hanken, VP of IT for Multiquip Inc.
  7. Lisa Moorehead, Director of IT for MA Dept of Public Utilities
  8. Mitchell Herbert, IT Director for McCormick Barstow
  9. Scott Lowe, CIO of Westminster College
  10. Joshua Grossetti, Head of IT for Triumvirate Environmental
  11. Edward Beck, VP of IT for Line 6, Inc.
  12. Joel Robertson, CIO of King College

Would you like to be part of TechRepublic's CIO Jury and have your say in the hottest issues for IT departments? If you are a CIO, CTO, IT director or equivalent at a large or small company in the private or public sector and you want to be part of TechRepublic's CIO Jury pool, drop us a line.

About

Jason Hiner is the Global Editor in Chief of TechRepublic and Global Long Form Editor of ZDNet. He is an award-winning journalist who writes about the people, products, and ideas that are revolutionizing the ways we live and work in the 21st century.

144 comments
tendyfish
tendyfish

it all depends on the environment and the type of work that is being done by the workers in question....For example in my case, i work in an environment where bandwidth is a precious and very expensive resource, so the only way to save up on that is to block social networking sites, so that work can be done, given that my organisation relies heavily on the web to function smoothly!

Who Am I Really
Who Am I Really

we use the server & router to filter for specific times ie. specific sites are blocked during most of the day but are available at lunch hour & the generally accepted coffee break times and for a short period before & after the regular work hours

nberigan
nberigan

"....you need to manage productivity by managing..."

lars_honeytoast
lars_honeytoast

time to say it in. There's the phone, cell phone, pager (if anyone still uses it), text, social websites, email, snailmail, forums, call-waiting, are there any more? You have to give people a chance to miss you a little! :D

skooboy
skooboy

This outcome of this "study" is biased towards political correctness. These weak-kneed CIO's just don't want to piss-off the fat, over-the-hill 50+ payroll accounts clerk(s). In a perfect world, these people would read news sites, and spend their break time doing something useful on the Internet.

msch
msch

My CIO has stated on more than one occasion that he want's to open up access to Facebook again. We blocked Facebook last spring, when we discovered the volume of Farmville related traffic was actually knocking a wan segment to one of our remote facilites offline. Clearly a case where better management of the staff was required, but since that meant stepping in someone's fiefdom, blocking at the perimeter was the eaisiest solution.

kumara.swamy.kasturi
kumara.swamy.kasturi

The Sample size is 12 respondents and out of which 8 say do not block. 1) My View: sample size is so small compared to total IT CIOs (I do not have the number but 12 is not the number comparable to total size). The decisions taken based on 12 respondents is not correct. I am not saying the end result may be different but CIO team needs to get right sample size to give a report. 2) Another thing which I did not like is.... though Title says do not block social networking sites but the artricle is dominated by views of CIOs who says block 100% or selective blocking. I did not find any view which says do not block. The entire article mentions details on blocking the sites. Whether author really foloowed what the verdict of 8 majority respondents. 3) The article could have covered what is the advantage of allowing social networking sites. This may be useful to interaction and may help in gaining knowledge and relaxing a little bit; CIOs are also responsible for behavioral aspects of people. Thanks, Kumara (KK)

melekali
melekali

...because the best approach, assuming social networking is not vital to your business and depending on your security needs is to block everything except what is permitted. This policy permits the bosses to determine what they want with the IT Staff working in an advising capacity to help balance risk and business capability. However, if social networking sites are vital to your business, then you would have to consider data redundancy of prime importance (higher than ordinary) considering the higher risk with many social networking sites.

tbmay
tbmay

There are 4 issues...it's pretty simple... Wasted time Wasted bandwidth Security Malware Take them as you wish. I can't think of many real business uses for Facebook. I do have an idea about the best MANAGEMENT practices regarding web filtering...or anything else for that matter. I think the best approach is to apply one policy to fit everyone and HIRE GOOD PEOPLE. It's simpler to keep up with and fosters good will with the employees because they know everyone adheres to the same standards. If someone is spending 2 hours on Facebook every day and you block it, that person probably isn't going to go, "Oh well, I guess I'll just work instead." No, they'll just find another way to goof off and it doesn't even have to be on a computer.

michael.green
michael.green

And really, with the advent of IPhones, IPads, Droids, and other personally owned devices of that ilk, isn't the discussion of blocking access to social media sites from the buisness network nostalgic?

JNStarwood
JNStarwood

The critical role of a company's Social Media Strategy and the requirements derived from it are very much absent from this poll and the resulting comments. How can an IT department determine social media policies and practices without understanding the Business Strategy with respect to social media? The role of Enterprise Architecture is to align IT and its automated IT solutions with the Business Operating Model, including its Social Media Strategy component. So to, each automated IT solution must implement the requirements allocated to it, including social media related requirements. Only after understanding the Business Strategy with respect to social media, can IT look at what remains on the table to determine whether further policies may or may not be needed. __ Joseph Starwood

ron
ron

Problem I have is when admins throw a "blanket" over the network or term better used "iron-curtain". I live behind a poorly configured Barracuda, the people in charge felt it necessary to block ANY and ALL videos that come into the net, this also includes any images hosted on flickr, photobucket etc etc. Granted some may find it funny to watch skateboarder Johnny crush his bits in the wall-mart parking lot several dozen times, but this not the only thing to watch on youtube.com. I use youtube as a training aid (no not to skateboard) but for the hundreds of videos from installing Call Manger, bgp, mpls configuring to Ubuntu setup. You name you can find lots of videos that help you with Linux, Avaya, Microsoft, Cisco, Extreme and Juniper. To answer the question, I think that you should take a closer look as who needs access to what and not just block every damn thing. Lastly I'll close with this, anything with double-click in the link IE Google search output are blocked too ARGH!

docebarnes
docebarnes

We use webfiltering in our Agency to block all Social media sites, but do have a whitelist where certain individuals are allowed to access these as is relevant to their job roles. We give users access from 12:45pm to 2:00pm. So users can use their lunch period such activities. However certain sites like pornographics sites are blocked for legal reasons.

emasse
emasse

I think the big question is: Does social media has any impact on your business? If it does, then look at implementing a Social media usage policy to let all employess access it. I would not start allowing it on a per user basis, this would end up unmanageable. If it has no impact, keep it blocked. Why run after trouble and time loss when it is not necessary.

Gis Bun
Gis Bun

First, I do have to say that users are at work to do work. Unless they are doing somedthing that requires Facebook and the like, there is no reason for someone to "Tweet" at 10am about what they did over the weekend to their friends. Then of course there are the security issues mentioned above. If the sites can be restricted to off hours (and maybe lunch time), I'd say maybe.

Ron Kunce
Ron Kunce

I remain confused on this issue, as the sites in question were started off to be for personal socializing, yet it seems almost all the major professional web-sites have facebook and twitter addresses which has moved them into a semi-pro relationship. I guess I would have to favor handling work system usage the same as I would for phone system usage (i.e., not blocked but monitored -- I've seen persons fired for excessive (personal) phone use). But, then its hard enough to monitor the phone usage -- maybe businesses should be concerned only with how much work gets done or doesn't get done.

Magiksoft
Magiksoft

This is an example of the modern 'nudge' mindset in its wild form. As some access is given, some security is lost. Can security be modulated with such fine control as to allow open networks to be connected to with frequency? Just take a look at the resent JAVA exploit, oops. Our systems are only as safe as the worst 3rd party app we allow to run. We roll those dice every minute of every day. I can check facebook at home, thank you.

Tea.Rollins
Tea.Rollins

Tech republic is supposedly a site tailored to business, and academics are not business people, even if they are university staff. They operate on a completely different scale of time than we do.

paul.watson
paul.watson

How many of these IT leaders service more than 500 users? Information about scale would provide additional perspective.

jmarkovic32
jmarkovic32

Facebook and Myspace are the bane of IT departments. Any CIO who gets suckered into doing this just to fit in with the other C-levels should do a couple of bad Fake V Alert removals. But then again, he may be yet another Farmville junkie and thus a lost cause. This article is proof that CIOs are mostly useless.

dbain2k
dbain2k

... with Chris Zalegowski's suggestion.

garyleroy
garyleroy

I thought the credit union's attitude was a bit disturbing. The vast unwashed have whitelist-acess-only, and the execs, who make many times the salary, can gossip and tweet all day if they want, and waste company funds at several times the rate of those lazy staffers. The past few years should have shown how much "executives" can be trusted, I guess some still don't get it.

moodytx
moodytx

Exactly what is "Social" about social networks and why do they belong in the business environment? Facebook is like a social STD with the "friend of a friend giving it to a friend" thing. John knows Mary and Mary knows Jim so John is now a FB friend with Jim... HUH???? I read the Library of Congress is now going to start archiving Twitter Tweets... Seriously ??? Social Networks and Cyber Space are the one place where you can listen to the orgasmic and inane screems of the world... in total silence ... They (SN's)have no place in the workplace. If you need to talk to a business contact, pick up the phone, send an email and arrange a phone or business meeting. But Paris Hilton getting a new doo, or the fat slob sitting in a porta-potty tweeting he just took a wicked grumpy ... well...

jfuller05
jfuller05

be allowed for all employees to have access too. It may make sense for marketing to be able to access Facebook, but why should everyone else? Generally, I don't like Facebook. The only reason I have one is to talk with my friends that moved away. Of course, since we have each other's numbers now, I just call them if I want to talk to them. The times I have been on Facebook, I noticed that people post the most arbitrary statements, e.g. "I just got out of the bathroom and thought I would say hi!" ?:| Uh, alright, thanks for telling everyone. I've also noticed that, generally, people just gossip on Facebook; why do I need to waste my time being on Facebook? I don't. :) So, there's really no purpose to have social networking sites open for all employees. I can understand the marketing division accessing these types of sites, but for the rest of the staff, I say block it.

animoid
animoid

You definately shouldn't shut Facebook down, this is over the top. Why shut it down? Facebook is a good site for lots of people. I don't want to have to spend all my free time on Facebook so I do a bit of Facebook during work time as well, no more than an hour a day. But you've got to stop people being on it all of the time, this has gone too far because Facebook is pointless. So I say block it.

tbostwick
tbostwick

I'm confused - Web 2.0 is developed, with many an IT finger in that pie. From that we have a up-cropping of new Web 2.o savvy tools to use. SoA is the buzzword and everything seems to be moving into this realm - no data stored locally, everything is cloudy. What is most concerning is how "easy" it is to scrape very personal data from these sites and for some invade and attacks thousands if not millions of accounts. And honestly, I am tired of the concept of Twitter - and who cares whether it was the 1st on the scene in Haiti or not - that's not the point. So, within the workplace network, this enviornment is even less safe to travel to and venture and for what? What is the purpose of Tweeting or FBooking someone at work?... just so you can tell them you're typing this note while reading your emails? What value to the company you work for is that? - just send an email if you need to. Same goes for cell phones and TXT'ing at work - same boat. It's now the #1 reason why kids are getting detentions, expelled and disciplined in school - because of cells and smartphones. It IS an annoyance and does detract from whatever else you're doing - and if we are going to crack down on drivers behind the wheel for doing this, then limiting or preventing it's use in the workplace is a no-brainer. There's simply NO USE for it unless it's company related, within most workplaces. just because you can doesn't mean you should!

MusicRab
MusicRab

It may be old hat, but the majority of clienting can be achieved through email; the social networks just have too many distractions for the IT peeps of today.

jfuller05
jfuller05

He had the best response about the use of social networking sites being accessed at work. If it's related to your job, sure, use it, but if it's not, then what business do you have logging in to Facebook?

ebairead
ebairead

Hi we have, in turn, blocked three social network sites. Staff merely move to the next. If staff want to waste time, they will always find new ways to do this. How many people in your organisation use the phone for personal calls? More interestingly - how many people (up to CEO level) in YOUR organization use corporate email for personal messages? Finally, people had better face up to the fact that there is a considerable amount of opinion and money saying that social networks will be increasingly important to business, so we block them at our peril. By the way, my blocking of YouTube lasted about 15 minutes. Top management use it extensively for business videos. Eoin

jmilton
jmilton

Social media is social. It serves no purpose in the business world unless you are marketing to the general public and then it should be limited to those individuals in the company that absolutely need it. BLOCK IT.

wcallahan
wcallahan

If you polled 100, why use only the first 12? What were the results of the 100?

Dr_Zinj
Dr_Zinj

Anyone you have in a Quality Assurance/Improvement department, function, or position. Of course that often is part of the Marketing department; but it's frequently part of the manufacturing or production departments. I know most of the radio stations in the Northeast use Facebook and other social sites for polling and feedback purposes above and beyond their own corporate websites.

jbfuller
jbfuller

The problem yet to be solved is how you protect people from people. They may be going to legit sites that have been infected and the soft cost of IT having to then clean/rebuild workstations is a double dip (e.g. Whitepages.com advertising on business related content gets infected). Not only do you lose an IT resource for X amount of time, the employee is also down for at a minimal, the time it takes IT to address the issue and at a maximum, the time to repair the situation (depending on your infrastructure and support). It will become increasingly harder to block the right mix of sites to both stay productive and ahead of the evil doers. Time building training solutions, recovery and scan/repair (along with self help and self healing) would be better time spent. Reviewing hit logs for internal staff is something that should be left behind with many other turn of the century practices...if your employees are that distracted then their qualitative and quantitative work should suffer. But, if they aren't suffering, then who cares if they log ten minutes here or ten minutes there on personal sites. In the end studies have shown that we are increasingly more ADD about our work, scattering our projects and priorities over smaller time intervals without changing the overall deadlines. This includes web surfing. The new guard of workers coming out of college will be tweeting and status updating on their phones while finishing the proposal and researching the next project all at the same time without any problem. The company that hinders this type of work will lose out on the best talent.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Has found its way around, over, or through all other dysfunctionalities in Zimbabwe to survive? Knowing only what I read, what I read is apparently not all there is to the situation there.

lars_honeytoast
lars_honeytoast

:) Just kidding by the way. I do agree with you about one thing, which is your post title. I find Facebook (and other social websites) to be nothing more than a place for intrusive and egotistical people.

interested bystander
interested bystander

I remember some of these same arguments years ago about giving employees access to the internet at all. And before that, about whether or not they needed PCs. "The Mainframe and dumb terminals are enough. They'll just use the PCs to play games". The thing is, you don't know the business uses yet because no one has thought up how to use them effectively. And if you block them out, no one who works for you ever will. But your competitor will. Actually, I can't believe LinkedIn was grouped in with Facebook and Twitter. LinkedIn is a business oriented network using the social media model. Everyone tells you that you need to network to find your next job or next employee. LinkedIn was designed to help you do that. It IS the business case for social networks.

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

often AREN'T academics, and have many of the same support problems as the rest of us. Actually, their job is probably worse, since they have all those different student systems they have to try to manage without the leverage of ownership.

czalegowski
czalegowski

Arsynic, I would like to comment on your statement. I don?t necessarily disagree with it (well, maybe about CIO?s being useless) but there are a lot of variables that come into play when making decisions about URL filtering. I can understand why it should be perceived as a black and white decision but it is not for some of the reasons below. 1.Business decision. Is this a business decision? For the most part, yes. When it comes to lost productivity, management needs to make s tough decisions. When users are accessing sites that can potentially infect their system (and spread throughout the company network), then IT needs to make management aware of the impact. I believe a decision like this should be a team effort between IT and management. What makes this difficult is the line of thinking ?Should everyone be punished for a couple of abusers?? 2.Morale. Someone threw the word ?morale? out there. I am split on that. Would morale drop if social media sites were blocked? I don?t think so. I think they would find another site. I am in support of users accessing sites (clean and harmless ones) as an option to ?recharge the batteries? during a lunch break or afternoon break. I know what it is like to just need 5 minutes of doing something mindless like checking personal email or catching up on ESPN. Companies do not want their employees burnt out and they do recognize the Internet is a medium that allows them to escape for brief moments. When they hit the 2+ hour mark per day is when a red flag goes up. Acceptable limits are generally overlooked. 3.Privacy. Some companies are worried about legal actions over privacy so they tend to be hesitant about blocking certain sites. Look up this court ruling on personal email at work. Cite: Stengart v. Loving Care Agency Believe me when I say some prefer to tread lightly on certain issues. 4.Turnover. Blocking sights will incur turnover. I disagree with this because if someone leaves a company because sites are blocked, then they are here for the wrong reasons. However, some companies just can?t afford turnover so I can see why that might play a role (even though I don?t agree). Cut your losses and make it back with a motivated employee. Plenty out there. Hiring the right people is so important. 5.Perception. Most companies do not want to be perceived as a company that doesn?t trust their users. Big brother is not a fan favorite. On the flip side, users should not have the expectation that their work system entitles them to private personal use. This is a gray area though. More so in public companies vs. private. 6.Reporting. By law, certain activities have to be reported to local authorities. This is an argument to block sites but does a company really want/need an employee who engages in illegal activities? Wouldn?t you want to know who that is? A very debatable argument. For those of us who are in positions that are a part of these decisions, I can honestly say that a lot of discussions take place and the decisions that are made are not designed to punish the users but to protect the company and to make sure the work gets done on time. After all, isn?t work what you are paid for? I do believe there are sites that are black and white (pornography, gambling, hacking, sites that contain known malware, etc). Sites that are non-business related (entertainment, social media, etc) are generally handled based on abuse. Security and productivity is a very slippery slope. Balancing these 2 areas is easily one of the toughest challenges we have to deal with. I am sure I missed some key points above but I am speaking from experience. Every company has different priorities and perspectives on this issue so that makes it hard to determine the right course of action vs. the best course of action. Chris

Oldmanmike
Oldmanmike

I have people rebuilding a machine that belongs to an accountant. He hit a site that kicked off every alarm bell in our managed security provider, along with our security suites internally. Who cares if he was wasting time other than his boss? What I care about as the head of IT is the potential risk associated with malware that can get installed. Aside from the wasted time in my IT department rebuilding his machine, there's a potential for damage or exposure of our data. We've set up machines in a break room where people can surf to their heart's content, minus a few porn filters. Completely outside our enterprise network, far away from machines that process customer data or financial information. We're locking people down more and more so that they have to go to those machines to do things that are not work related. Pain in the behind? Maybe. But we're MUCH more secure this way.

BoatMeadow
BoatMeadow

Oh wait. We weren't talking about unlimited access to a phone were we? How many of the above comments could just as easily apply to phone use when they were first introduced into the workforce? On a different note - how many managers have ever asked their employees to help fill a open position within the team - "come on, you must know someone" is a direct request for someone to tap their social network. If you ban access to social networks within an organization then you shouldn't be able to tap them - otherwise you are asking people to do work related stuff (ie. interacting in their social network) after hours. Just my $.02

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

If you're selling a hot new consumer product to teens, you need to reach them where they hang out. That's on social sites. If you're selling an established product to a mature industry (say, railroad switching equipment), it may not be as important as a fax machine.

sschiffgens
sschiffgens

I think it's because they're using a jury theme. i.e. 12 people on a jury, interview those 12 people for detail rather than simply survey a large group and post only survey stats.

roxroe
roxroe

Schools are mandated to filter and block any non educational site. We don't care what the users think - we lose fed dollars if we don't make sure the children stay off bad sites. If the teachers - who know the policy and signs it before they get their credentials - don't like it they can go elsewhere. We don't care if they want to facebook, tweet or whatever. Go home if you want to play. The argument that they won't work for us if they are used to having unlimited unfiltered access to toys is silly - they are here to teach children who are NOT in the internet - they are in front of them. Facebook (et al) is an attractive nuisance,with no redeeming educational value.

unhappyuser
unhappyuser

The best talent is coming from overseas. The "talent" in the US is subpar to their foreign peers and is limited in their thinking because of these new electronics gadgets and fads (e.g facebook). I have seen more "intelligent idiots" coming out of US schools every year. Until we fix our education system and get kids back to thinking as they should US businesses will never be able to compete and will continue to falter. EMD

kevaburg
kevaburg

And I care because I employ people to perform specific tasks, not to socially interact with friends and family. I want to see lines of code across their screens and not read that mothers dog has had to go to the vet. It sounds hard I know, but I have made the concession that Facebook will remain open as long as it is only accessed during official break periods, amounting to around 1.5hours for an 8hr work day. The rule is that it will stay like that until the first person abuses the privilege at whcih point it will be trned off. The result? A workforce that polices Facebook usage itself to ensure none crosses the line. A couple of people have obviously tried it and I have turned a blind eye simply because the workforce don't want to lose it and have dealt with the individuals themselves and in a responsible manner. Everyone has signed an IT policy that has in the last six months been amended to include social websites. Everyone has signed it and everyone is productive and noone (to the best of my knowledge) has complained. It is a solution that worked for me, and maybe there are others that it might work for as well.

ron
ron

No but when you do a search in Google, just about every-other link had doubleclick in it. So what happens is when you are looking for something and you find the link that might have the info you need, you get slap in the face by a proxy... just frustrating.

GSG
GSG

Universities probably don't have the funding that a private corporation does. If they are like healthcare, they probably have to squeeze every last bit of usefulness out of anything, and then harvest the parts to build a franken-server. Having the latest and greatest is not an option, so it would be easier to just ban it across the board for all work-related networks.

ericm
ericm

Not only do we have a whitelist but there is a GPO application whitelist. ((takes a screenshot to send error to IT)) [Opens Paint]... "This application failed to open due to restrictions on the computer".

johnm
johnm

It is true. This Community College doesn't restrict social network sites for faculty, staff or students but does have a "de minimus" personal use policy in place for faculty and staff and frequent reminders sent out. Our wireless network is not "public" per ruling of the State Attorney General's office, so you need a valid login and password to get on. Current students wander the web where they will, and boy will they. Two systems down for uncleanable malware this morning and thirteen cleaned malware reports this morning (and it isn't noon yet). It isn't a job, it's an adventure.

smankinson
smankinson

You cannot take a pool of people from one nation and compare them to a pool of workers coming into that nation from another nation. You will not have a burger flipper from another country overseas coming to US to work. Of course, most people coming into the US for work (especially overseas) will have a higher IQ average than the general population pool of the US and the worker pool of the US. I've been to Europe enough to see the gen population over there is just not that bright either. Are you saying the Japanese, who love gadgets, are 'intelligent idiots'?

CharlieSpencer
CharlieSpencer

I'd say it was 'better'. Eye of the beholder, and all that.

jck0roses
jck0roses

I don't know where you found lazy people demanding new toys (and apparently succeeding), but I'd love to hear more about this! I can't imagine anyone buying me a gadget. It is all so expensive that I can hardly rationalize them for myself. If you have information on employers dumb enough to do this, please share. I am most interested! BTW, I am an American student with a 4.0 average and my parents were both born here. I guess it must be true that we Americans are hopelessly stupid, because so far, the only way I have learned to get anything is to work for it. Thanks in advance for all your help:)

unhappyuser
unhappyuser

Take a look at the people that are in the top of their fields right now in this country. A majority are foreign born or children of immigrants. In the medical, IT, science, etc. fields children of U.S born parents are not making the grade. You speak of the Japanese - they may love their "gadgets" but they aren't on top anymore when it comes to ideas, designs, etc. Their ethnic arrogance and immigration policies are rapidly destroying them economically. US students, at best, are barely in the top 15 of industrialized nations when compared to their counterparts in other nations. The've become lazy demanding access to the new toys that may give them a feel good day but hurts business productivity. EMD

unhappyuser
unhappyuser

I'm the 17th generation that's lived here in the N. America. Old-school educated and know enough to see we're in BIG trouble with what's been coming out of our schools for the past 10+ years. Thank you Baby Boomers. EMD