Marcia Steelman (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 30 Jul 1999 20:38:47 -0400
David Woolley wrote:
> It seems much more likely that this is the real reason for the block
> and that you got through before because there were very few hits, but
> > SETI@Home has caused a lot of hits and they have done a *seti* deny rule
> on URLs. I believe some companies use a positive vetting rule and
> only allow sites that are considered directly relevant to the company's
> business needs. Web browsing can be seriously costly in wasted
> man hours.
That's what they did. But he was not instructed to act like that.
And he said:
> You haven't told us what business you are in, but you need to demonstrate
> to us that there is a clear business need for your employers before we
> can question the reasonableness of their decision.
I work for a government agency. Because of the activities I am supposed
to perform, I am allowed to have in my computer private messages, and
have permission to work from home. They even gave me a notebook
computer, for that purpose, even though I have a desktop at home.
The only restriction we have is to place messages of political nature or
offensive content, and hacking is not allowed. We pay a flat fee for the
Internet access, therefore if we put traffic or not it costs the same.
The high management told me there is no policy against any site, and
that that sistems administrator decided to start one. He just wanted to
control the use because he was a control freak, and he was not
questioned. Of couse, they could have safely blocked pornography sites,
but they hadn't, and I was told that there was no policy about
recreational sites, as long as it is lunch break, or after hours.
As you said he was just looking at what we were browsing, and then
deciding on what to cut. As nobody there is after porno (we're all
computer geeks), these sites were not blocked.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Aug 01 1999 - 16:28:48 PDT