[Cialug] "Going Google"

[Tim Wilson]

<troll>
So the person that forgot the iPhone prototype in a bar isn't a quality
employee?
</troll>

Unfortunately, even quality employees can do things they shouldn't.  Because
someone doesn't agree with the corporate rules, doesn't necessarily make
them a malicious employee.  I hate the fact that I have to use Outlook, and
that I'm on a corporate domain (until recently, we had a domain for our
office, not hooked into the big corporate domain).  I hate the fact that
they've instituted idiotic rules for software, locking things down so tight
that, if I develop a program that uses the network, I have to have them open
up a port in the firewall.  Not just for me, but for everyone in the
corporation (because that's how they do things).  And every computer on the
domain must be Windows, and we're all supposed to develop on the computers
that are connected to that domain.  However, if someone decides to develop
on a computer that's not hooked into the large domain, does that make them a
malicious employee?  Or an example that's relevant to me, if I use a browser
on a computer that isn't on the large domain, just to keep them from prying
too much, am I being malicious?  I would argue that as long as I'm not doing
something stupid (like agreeing to a contract in instant messenger), then
I'm not being malicious.  My point is, an employee isn't necessarily
malicious, that implies that they're doing "bad things" with intent to do
harm.  Most of the rules are put into place for people who don't know any
better or lack common sense.


On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:12 PM, <jrnosee at gmail.com> wrote:

> You hit the nail on the head here.  Sad to say this isn't the only paranoia
> block that's been done that's basically plugged 1 hole in a strainer.  While
> we can have USB drives we're simply not supposed to remove confidential
> docs.  While we're not supposed to have contractors on our network we have
> in the past.....
>
> I agree completely.  If you hire good quality people things like this
> shouldn't be a problem.
>
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Matt Stanton <
> inflatablesoulmate at brothersofchaos.com> wrote:
>
>>  Yeah, but couldn't they also just ftp/scp confidential documents to
>> anywhere they pleased?  Even using a thumbdrive would be possible.  I
>> suppose there are ways of making it so that people don't have access to
>> removable storage or downloaded programs (to prevent people from installing
>> a program that could transmit those docs).  In the end, though, it's a
>> matter of getting rid of malicious employees.
>>
>>
>> On 4/17/2010 7:10 PM, jrnosee at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> I think too it's a matter of trusting people with internal access who
>> might put confidential documents on Google docs and then retrieve them
>> elsewhere.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.orghttp://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cialug mailing list
>> Cialug at cialug.org
>> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cialug mailing list
> Cialug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/cialug
>
>


-- 
Tim
Required reading: http://bccplease.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/cialug/attachments/20100421/f5e61643/attachment.htm