On The Uselessness Of Blocking Social Networks At Work
from the did-you-block-the-telephone? dept
When this new-fangled invention called "the telephone" first became popular, there were some offices that refused to allow them on office workers' desks, for fear that they would be a waste of time and a distraction that took away from work. I sort of feel the same way when I hear about companies banning Facebook or Twitter, these days. As we've said before, it's obvious that there are people who abuse such tools, and you deal with that by recognizing that they're not being productive and either telling them to shape up or firing them. Blocking a very useful communications tool just because some people might abuse it doesn't seem particularly smart. And yet... it's happening more and more. Yet another study shows how common it is for IT staff to block access to such sites.However, an article at The Globe & Mail points out how silly this is. The people who are really obsessed with using such sites will simply find ways around such blocks, whether its via some sort of proxy site -- or just by accessing the sites via a smartphone, outside the control of the corporate IT staff. On top of that -- especially with younger staff -- it sets up a workplace where management says, right upfront: we don't trust you. Why not hire more trustworthy staff and deal individually with those who abuse the system, rather than putting forth an outright ban that throws out the potential good uses along with the misuses?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blocking, social networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You just try telling my boss that...
I've even saved the company thousands of pounds, solving a company issue with Facebook (I went home at lunch to use it) - by being able to broadcast a plea to expert people who I know... it's silly, but they'll never budge!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
The same places that block social networking are generally the same places that block access to gmail and other web-mail providers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I disagree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like I'm repeating myself...
Some divisions in a company NEED access to social networking sites (media relations, marketing, etc.), some have the pull to be ALLOWED access to them (C-Level folks, the girl banging the Chairman of the Board, etc.), and some have no need for it (assistants, secretaries, security, etc.).
Most modern content filtering appliances (probably software too, though I'm less familiar w/them) have the ability to integrate with grouping software like Active Directory. So you assign different policies to different groups and allow people to go about their day. Hell, with what we use internally, you can allow groups access to different sites and/or heuristic categories at different times. Want to reward your lower staff for being productive? Allow them access to Facebook/Myspace/Fantasy Sports/ESPN/Etc. on ther lunch hour.
For any decent infrastructure, this stuff ain't difficult...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like I'm repeating myself...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds like I'm repeating myself...
That may be true, but the reality of today's marketplace is that you have a rather large number of what business management professors will call an "immature workforce". I'm just not sure this idea that "well, you just hirer better people" is realistic. Every company is going to have some really good performers, a great deal of mid-level producers, and its small share of bad apples. You don't put the policies and filtering structures in place fo the bad apples. Those people should be fired. You put them in place for the mid-range folks.
It's the same theory about locks on homes/cars: if someone REALLY wants to break in, you really aren't going to stop them. Locks don't keep out thieves and criminals. Locks keep honest people honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like I'm repeating myself...
But if we're talking about a lock on a door to a copy room, or blocking a site with any potential for positive use, I diverge. I think the gap in how that applies to this blocking of sites thing is that there are at least *some* legitimate uses (or at least uses that have negligible negative impact) even for low level employees to get past that lock, and so that lock becomes something that turns an honest person dishonest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sounds like I'm repeating myself...
and I really hate it. It's patronising. If people are honest they don't need locks - or whatever - to keep them so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blame the bad egg
Example: I sent my workplace the phishing test from sonicwall from what, 5 years ago? Lots of people called me up afterwards since my name was on it, and had no idea/easily fell for it.
People aren't just uneducated about the issue, management doesn't want to deal with it either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because that's haaaaard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not convinced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not convinced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Security & Social Media
All that said a kneejerk response to block social media is not called for. Social media is a valid and valuable resource and communications method. What organizations need to do is consider the risks and benefits from use and make decisions that minimize the risk while maximizing the benefit. For example, companies may want to manage social media access if they are under some regulatory obligation to not communicate certain information (e.g., quiet period during IPO, SOX compliance, etc.). The management may result in restriction, monitoring or recording. Another risk based decision might be to manage access to social media sites based on their potential for abuse. An example of this would be blocking access to Facebook where the application platform presents some serious risks while allowing access to Twitter where the risks are more manageable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unblocking social networks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unblocking social networks
No... no you don't. Seriously, it's a matter of choice (and compromise). Always has been.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unblocking social networks
No... no you don't. Seriously, it's a matter of choice (and compromise). Always has been.
OK, if the people who work at my company do not want to go to jail and/or get massive fines, they have to block social networking sites.
Sure, I could make a choice to break the law, and compromise with respect to the amount of freedom and surprise buttsecks I would like to have, but it doesn't seem like much of a choice from where I'm sitting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unblocking social networks
Where do you work, and why is buttsecks the punishment for Facebook??!!
(Also, with respect, you could choose a different place of employment... seriously--no matter how good the pay--the out-door is for personal use only!!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unblocking social networks
There are many companies that are under a variety of regulations concerning external communications. And it's not so much that buttsecks is the punishment for Facebook, but you could certainly go to jail for breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unblocking social networks
Absolutely, like the CIA, NSA, defense contractors, government offices, etc.
However, if you have people on your payroll that are twittering, "OMG! U should see the new schematics for this bunker buster bomb that came across my desk! It's going rip the FACES off of arab kids!", then I think the organization might have deeper underlying issues...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unblocking social networks
As i understand it, if you are not in the MOD or have another really sensitive job like that which promotes secrecy and has little transparency, there is no law which can levy a fine against a company. If you know this because it just something someone told you, i think they are pulling your leg.
I don’t agree with what you are saying that "nobody wants it blocked" in your company. if that was the case, it wouldn’t be blocked. Someone wants it blocked and they have a reason, whether it is a logical reason or not.
Facebook is a socialising tool which can be manipulated to work as a business communication tool. I think if Facebook was modified so you could switch it between business mode and social mode, where business mode would have many extra business tools and functions, i think this would be more accepted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
savvy users can use it for true networking, an extension of their irl network, but I've seen too many a minimum wage easily distracted people do quiz after quiz on facebook, and chat with Johnny from the club using Yahoo messenger to agree fully (not to talk about all the crap these type of non-savvy users tend to install - toolbar after toolbar).
after blocking access these people actually picked up the phone when it rang, and focused more on their tasks at hand which made both their managers happier, and myself as an IT admin.
other than that I'm actually an advocate for local admin rights and freedom under responsibility, but in this particular case one size does not fit all in my experience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not always IT's fault
IT was run pretty much as a problem child. Kept in the dark and only fed enough to survive. Then I came along. We managed to increase budgets for such luxuries as anti-virus, anti-malware, anti-spam. Prior to this, things were protected using the crossed-fingers method of safe computing.
One item that we put in place was website filtering. At first, I set it so that only malicious sites, porn, gambling and the like were filtered. After all, its the manager's job to determine if employees are productive, not mine. I was told buy my bosses to increase filtering, after all, people shouldn't be able to get to their home email, news, blogs or other such "superfluous" sites.
And then it started. People started talking about how IT stops them from doing their jobs by blocking valid sites. I had our marketing manager say that he should not be blocked from ANY site because we could be blocking potential customers or business. Considering that online porn sites NEVER use our products, I don't think that particular argument is quite valid.
From the beginning, I told people that I don't determine what to block, so if something is blocked that they need access to, let me know. If they tell me to open up an online casino, they'll have to get managerial approval, as it is management who should determine if the request has merit, not me. If the site is clearly benign or is a valid potential business partner (client, investor, employee, supplier, etc), then sure!
With this said, I have known IT people throughout my career that would treat the Internet as their baby and stop any use they deem improper. Some have even done so with such relish that I wonder if they missed their calling as a dominatrix. But I've also come across many that take a very "ya, whatever" approach to site filtering. They don't really care where the user goes as long as they don't cause disruption of the environment.
I really don't care what the users do as long as they don't introduce malware and such to our network. It's disruptive to them and the rest of the company. Additionally, people need to do their jobs. It's unfair for one person in a department to have to cover for those that wish to chat all day long.
But, it's not my job to manage it. I manage my own staff. If work doesn't get done, then I have a problem. If work is getting done, then I say let them blow off a little steam during the lulls. They earned it.
Please don't be so quick to judge the IT folk. Some of us are people too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The telephone has many uses for business. I think that the reality is that most employees talking on the phone are talking business. They may make a few personal calls, but for the most part it is business.
Facebook? Twitter? There isn't much business getting done there.
It's a weak comparision to try to create more socialistic "free the people" sympathy here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not convinced either
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
eventually they'll come around...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm a firm believer
The past couple of years I have been more in a position to manage large numbers of PCs across a wide majority of the united states where every site had their own procedural policies. What I have seen is that the sites where access was controled through procedures while allow full open access to all the machines are the most time consuming in maintenance. I spend probably 70% of my IT/Machine maintenance actually removing spyware and viruses etc... The sites that block access is sub 10% of my time...
In my customers cases there is no way of idenifying an individual who performed the tasks leading to the viruses, only a shift of people which means noone can be held accountable.
I tend to lean towards the use of OpenDNS which so far has been a good compromise.
As for the social networks, I rarely have to disable them, they aren't really the cause of the problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree that IF there is a need for the overall good of the company to allow access, you allow it.
Why should they be paid to sit and surf MySpacetwitterbook?
As an IT manager for 16 yrs, I can tell you more harm comes from it than good.
These are the same kids who hit us up to remove the spyware they infected themselves with at home.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take a break
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Blah blah blah
I still find Zenith's example weak at best, Facebook is the last place I go for tech help stackoverflow, hackernews, maybe even reddit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luddites and Control Freaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Luddites and Control Freaks
Also, I'm guessing that those same people haven't had to be at work for 25hrs straight fixing a problem that could have been prevented from the get-go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As an example, I have the algorithm automatically score and sort all Techdirt articles and comments for me. I've found it to be quite accurate. There's only been one article in the past three weeks that was scored "cool". It was an article that talked about the Blair Witch Project.
I'm fine-tuning a filter extension that removes comments from dumb, mistakenly US-relocated Germans in Chicago that like to see what they write (love to listen to them self talk, and probably also suffer from accute dementia) ultimately need to be deported.
Right now, this article scores a -12 on a scale of a -50 to +50. After it posts, I'll re-scan it and let it follow the links (including this one) and let you know what it re-scores at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No shit? In all seriousness, if you ever divised such a system to actively filter out and/or score what you don't like, including new and "unknown users" who haven't commented yet, I'd be seriously impressed.
Oh, and I agree completely with your description of me, well done, except that I didn't relocate from Germany, I'm just of partial German heritage. But hey, maybe you could include some kind of recourse in your nifty little algorithm for you making shit up that I never said.
Moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
>> I'm just of partial German heritage.
Nice. But as you probably know, even greasy Spaniards have a special date of observation on the American Calendar. Maybe you'll be that one to break through do something uber cool that will honor your heritage beyond the staples of sausages and sauerkraut.
Oh wait, it all suddenly makes sense why you're in Chicago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sweet...how about now?
"But as you probably know, even greasy Spaniards have a special date of observation on the American Calendar."
I'm liking you more and more due to your hateful nature. It's like we're kindred spirits....
"Maybe you'll be that one to break through do something uber cool that will honor your heritage beyond the staples of sausages and sauerkraut."
Mmmmm, sausages stapled to sauerkraut....
"Oh wait, it all suddenly makes sense why you're in Chicago."
Because of the sausages and sauerkraut? Hmm, I dunno, when it comes to sausages, we've got a pretty hefty Polish population here (most of any city in the world outside of Poland). But hell, I do enjoy encased meat AND sauerkraut, so maybe you're right after all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
>> Because of the sausages and sauerkraut? Hmm,
>> I dunno, when it comes to sausages... I do
>> enjoy encased meat AND sauerkraut, so maybe
>> you're right after all.
Precisely. Dark Helmet may be a euphemism for "Sausage King of Chicago."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ha, I wish!
Unfortunately, some guy in boystown has probably already trademarked that name....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPfglYWHZwE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Very cool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong, just plain wrong
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Social networks
Of course you have to have managers that will enforce policy evenly and fairly. This means IT has to be in the business of tracking and staying up with usage. Its not fun, cool or pleasant but it needs to be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Types of businesses
The financial sector. And it's not "jailed if they use face book", it is a whole set of requirements and regulations that include everything from phones to personal cell phones, to IM, and a host of other things.
And nobody at my company does want to block it. It is a pain in the ass to block it, and almost entirely useless, and everyone knows it. But we have to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bandwith
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
allow me first to proudly announce we do not block social networking sites. We as a company use Facebook/Twitter/Myspace etc as a marketing tool, so it's part of our business.
that said, you're oversimplifying how admins can and do block unapproved sites. If I block something here at work, you aren't getting to it unless you use your cell phone. There is no "just use an outside proxy server."
Second, you assume that blocking social networking sites is due to management not trusting their employees to work while they're at work. While I would say it's a large issue, it's not the only, and there are spinoffs to having your trust betrayed. Consider the liability issue. What a person can do on their work computer can come back to bite you in court, especially if you're found negilgent.
thirdly, you ask:
"Why not hire more trustworthy staff and deal individually with those who abuse the system, rather than putting forth an outright ban that throws out the potential good uses along with the misuses?"
the answer to that, for me, is simple. Like most companies running lean due to the economy, I just don't have time or staff to babysit what you should and shouldn't be doing at work. Most companies I know ban sites as a reaction to a visible problem, not a potential one. If a site got banned here, it was a corporate issue, not "a few bad apples."
I get pretty upset when I start seeing people refer to the staff as "IT Nazi's." Most IT guys are backlogged as it is so we get pretty upset when Joe End User caused a problem because he couldn't find the motivation to get some work done today.
I'm all for allowing people the opportunity to do some personal surfing at work, when done in reason. But on the other side of the coin, I'm being paid to work, not surf facebook to see who scored 700 points on Farmville.
Lunch break's over... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The bible says something on this too
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
Originally in Deuteronomy (25:4) quoted in 1 Corinthians 9:9 and in 1 Timothy 5:18.
Frankly this is a two way traffic - if I can't do personal things at work then I won't do work things at home - and guess who will lose the most.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong
However in the facility where I am currently employed, such sites are intenetionally blocked for many reasons, a couple of which I will share. Firstly, before any such blocking software/hardware solution was implemented, my department had proof, (screenshots) that the majority of our employees were abusing the Internet system and causing serious bandwidth issues. I'm in the same boat as "Anonymous Coward." "I'm all for allowing people the opportunity to do some personal surfing at work, when done in reason. But on the other side of the coin, I'm being paid to work, not surf facebook to see who scored 700 points on Farmville." Sadly given the oppertunity to prove otherwise, very few of our employees will do this in reason. Not to mention the number of viruses that our new system has blocked from entering our network via ignorant end-users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
blocking Ocial Networks
http://www.taringa.net/posts/ebooks-tutoriales/3716751/bloquear-messengers-IMs-y-Redes- Ociales.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Palo Alto Networks whitepaper To Block or Not. Is that the question?”
kelly@briefworld.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Time Doctor
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ive been using http://bit.ly/bJwmma .
It uses a better procedure than blocking social media sites because it only monitors sites like Twitter during
production hours. People/Employees still have the option to use it for a breather or during breaks really .
Sometimes they use it for work too in helping reach decisions. For me its really unnecessary to block Twitter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]