> If an organization has a policy that states, The Internet is use is for
> Business Use Only. The organization then has to define Business Use
(i.e.
> no viewing of pornographic or sexually explicit material) That is all
> nice and dandy. Once you state that in a policy, the statistics for
> users viewing adult related material goes sky high.
I have not found this to be the case. Defining Business use gives the
organization a wide discretionary boundary. Pornography and/or sexually
explicit material has an intense history of lawsuits, and ought to be
specified. Some people are dense. :)
YES, I agree with you whole heartedly, but mentioning the words in a
corporate policy sometimes get people and lawyers biting at the bit..
> Organizations are much better off mentioning in their organization
policy
> regarding Internet Use as the following: "Employees of XYZ organization
> should not view material via the Internet that may be consider
publically
> offensive in nature to the general population of the organization" This
> type of statement then allows the senior management team time to decide
> what is deemed offensive or not >SNIP for brevity>
This is what we use Command View for. Our employees will sometimes hit an
inappropriate site while investigating a customer charge complaint, and
they
usually come immediately to me to report it. They know that monthly
reports
of EVERYWHERE they go are given to our VPs. This is primarily preventive
medicine, IMO.
But the statement itself cools the environment, since there is such a
diversity of what people consider sexually explicit or in poor taste.
> In reality, one should really creating a HTTP/HTTPS service redirection
> request displaying the following: "All Internet activities are logged
and
> some of the words from the Acceptable Use Policy", and make the user
click
> "Yes" I accept and understand the warning message and actions that the
> corporation may take against if I view blah, blah sites.. Then allow the
> user out. The user has to make a conscious effort before they go "Porn
> Surfing"
The above is also a feature in most of the well known commercial
firewalls. You don't need another piece of software to do this function..
Heck, even in FWTK, you can modify the http-gw plug to do this.. So ELRON
did not invent something new here.
This is a feature of the software that is available, but we haven't used
it
since it is NT based (hint, hint, Elron!!) and we are primarily a Novell
shop. However, every employee signs off on the fact that they know they
are
being monitored. Not policed. Monitored. My IS department leaves
corrective action to the VPs.
ELRON Internet Manager if very rudimentary at best, and is not fully
developed. The reporting itself is just spiddle of HTML.. I do not wish
to go into a tirade about a product from a company who at one time had a
very decent DOS based firewall.
> This type of quick hack also cuts down on the amount of administration
> hours one must dedicate in keeping up with those pesky sites.
Oh I dunno. Administration of this product is just like any other. I
monitor what the blocking function does, because it's automatic functions
are in error about 30% of the time. When folks do get blocked, it serves
to
remind them that Big Sister <<grin>> is keeping them company.
Here it is again, if the user makes a conscious effort to go "Porn
surfing", he/she has admitted guilt, unless otherwise permitted from the
network security group in order to investigate a potential problem. There
is no need to monitor, except when bad pages are redirected to some poor
Executive Assistant attempting to book travel arrangements for the CEO of
the company. I can remember an example of a site who primarily business
was making lottery ticket machinery.
The problem was that Lottery, Scratch Tickets, etc are classified under
Gambling, such to a point that their web page was being blocked by every
major Web Blocking software available due to what business they were in..
So you are absolutely correct that the software is in error 30% of the
time.
I feel real bad for the NRA and other such entities especially around
Election time.. :)
One also cannot downplay the seriousness of lawsuits in a business
environment!
Agreed, I was hoping the Big Jack D from GTE Internetworking about the
seriousness of lawsuits in a business environment. He was always good
playing the pointy haired Dilbert Management spokesperson and his views on
the seriousness of lawsuits.. :)
/mark
Regards to all on this excellent list!
Arian Eigen Heald, CNE,MCP
Network Administrator
DIRECT Federal Credit Union
Needham, MA 02494
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
