NationStates Jolt Archive

the company you work for banned use of Facebook at the office.

A new study has confirmed some employees believe access to social networking sites is so important they'd leave their job rather than work for a company which blocked Facebook.

http://apcmag.com/block_facebook_and_watch_your_staff_walk.htm


I don't think I would leave the company if they did, though I would be unhappy and possibly angry if they ever did. I think if some people can't go 8 hours without checking up on Facebook there must be something wrong with you, and to leave your job because of it, is a bit over the top.

Of course not.

Now if they blocked NSG... ;)

No. Actually, it is almost a guarantee that my access to many websites will be blocked including, but not limited to facebook, myspace, youtube, and many email servers.


Thus is working in a school.

Would You Leave Your Job If...

Yes. Certainly. Without hesitation.

Oh. Was there more to that question?

I'm Unemployed.

Ok, I use both myspace and facebook... and if they both BOTH PLUS NS I still wouldn't quit if it's a good job. Then again, I need the $$ right now. lol Maybe if I'm Bill Gates?

Ok, I use both myspace and facebook...

I would go work somewhere simply because they had blocked Myspace. I would call them "brotha".

When you are at WORK, you are supposed to be WORKING, not blogging, checking Facebook, buying stuff on line, downloading porn, checking your personal e-mail, et cetera.

I would go work somewhere simply because they had blocked Myspace. I would call them "brotha".
lol I use myspace because some people I know use it and no facebook (and visa versa) - if my friends and family all used facebook, I wouldn't use myspace... heh

If you are worried about your Internet being blocked at work then you may need to check your priorities. Work is just what it implies. If I am paying someone I expect them to do what it is I am paying them for. Not screwing around on the net. Do that on your own time I say.

When you are at WORK, you are supposed to be WORKING, not blogging, checking Facebook, buying stuff on line, downloading porn, checking your personal e-mail, et cetera.

Reminds me of a time when I had a good friend of mine calling me with a frantic voice. They are going to fire me he says. I say slow down and tell me what is going on. He was tipped off that they were coming down from corporate to fire him because they had evidence he was looking at porn. He was asking me what he should do. He said he was going to smash the computer. I told him not to do it. So I thought quick and told him to write his log-in name and password on a piece of paper. Then I told him to put it in the top drawer of his desk at work. So when they came down and started quizzing him he could say that it wasn't him. Then he could act stupid and say that someone used his log-in and password that he had written down and put in the desk. They came down and started grilling him. He did what I told him to do. He pulled out the paper. I guess the looks on the faces were of puzzlement at what to do. He kept his job but came very close to being fired.

One job the closest thing we have to a computer are UHF radios...
The other job I do nothing but browse the net... (but I'm allowed to as long as I stop to hand out a bag of ice when someone hurts themselves...)

When you are at WORK, you are supposed to be WORKING, not blogging, checking Facebook, buying stuff on line, downloading porn, checking your personal e-mail, et cetera.

I'm far too paranoid to do anything like that on a workplace computer.

To have a computer in front on you with the time for browsing the internet and still complain about quitting? How out of touch of reality do people have to be? You guys seriously need to work in some manual labor minimum wage job for a year or something to learn what it means to be really working.

seriously guys, its caled a proxy server or using torpark, u guys suck for forum users

seriously guys, its caled a proxy server or using torpark, u guys suck for forum users

Ah yes, obeying the letter of the law, if not the spirit.

LMAO, I don't get to go on Facebook for work. I stand at a till scanning groceries the whole time. I get a fifteen minute break to use the bathroom and have a drink of water. I work 6 or 7 days in a row (only 4 or 5 hour shifts, though), with no overtime pay, and if I want a specific day off, I have to request it several months in advance. And compared to 98% of the world, I got it pretty fricking good. When there are kids making shoes for ten cents a day, you've got to be pretty damn ignorant to quit your job because you can't do recreational things while working. Boo hoo! Maybe I'll quit because I'm not allowed to play hopscotch while customers wait.

Using those sites IS forbidden at my workplace.
I still work here.

What's next - asking if you would quit your job if your friends cannot come over for a beer during working hours ?

What's next - asking if you would quit your job if your friends cannot come over for a beer during working hours ?

That would be grounds to climb the local water tower with a rifle! ;)



My work is talking about blocking internet acces, so far i've been able to stop it. My department is customer services and i don't want my people to start walking around and chatting when its quiet, better if they're facebooking etc.

Of course not.

Now if they blocked NSG... ;)

^ this. :cool:

seriously guys, its caled a proxy server or using torpark, u guys suck for forum users

Can someone explain to me what this whelp is yapping about? Oh THAT's right. EVERYone online is supposed to be an expert like HE is. Got it.



Tool.

Can someone explain to me what this whelp is yapping about? Oh THAT's right. EVERYone online is supposed to be an expert like HE is. Got it.



Tool.

either that or he's never worked for a company with a tight security protocal in place that knows how to find people who try to use their LAN connection to route to sites using proxy servers.

or it could be he's hinting that he uses these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing), which alot of SysAdmins watch out for.

which only speaks of him being unemployed or he's one of the security network people of his workplace in which he can patch the network firewall and security measures of his company to allow him access.

I wonder if Facebook bans its employees from using facebook in the name of staff efficiency.

I can't say I'd find it a great loss if it was banned.

Meh we banned it here a while back, there was a lot of unhappy people, we just told them to suck it up and get on with their work.

Social networking sites should be banned at work, and relly if you go ahead and quit because of it, then I guess your employers can say at least they had a lucky escape.

Some people have a very strange work ethic.

At work, you should be working. It's really not that long before the day ends and you can go home and check your personal websites.

No. Now, if they banned NSG...

Well, hypotheticly. If I had a job.

I'm Unemployed.

What they said.
Plus, I don't use social sites anyways.

just use a proxy to get around it.

Of course not, I don't use facebook. Though I might suggest that they let people use such sites during their break. Happy workers strike less :)

just use a proxy to get around it.

Yeah coz we IT bods can't figure that one out and catch ya red handed!

no, i very rarely even have access to a computer at work anyway.

Yeah coz we IT bods can't figure that one out and catch ya red handed!

Nope. Proxies are unbeatable countermeasures to all forms of IT security. Why I once used seven proxies to read George Bush's personal emails.


Hey, who are those guys with guns running towards my house?

No, and people who would are so stupid that they should quit their lives not their jobs.

Eh. My only reaction would be "Meh. Oh well, I'll find something else to do while waiting for a call."
I am a student, so if nothing else, I probably have a paper to be working on at any given time that I can occupy myself with.

The mind boggling arrogance of this is bizarre.

You are at work. I can't see how social networking sites relate to work. If they let you use it, cool. But quitting? That's just weird. Can you imagine the next job interview.
Prospective Employee:I quit my last job because they wouldn't let me use facebook. I'm a really hard worker, really dedicated. When do I start?
Employer: Give us your facebook details. We'll contact you if you get the job. :rolleyes:

None of the computers I use at my job have web access, so for me the question is irrelevent. Anyway, Like Kat said: when you are at work, you are supposed to be working, not screwing around on personal things.

Yeah coz we IT bods can't figure that one out and catch ya red handed!
From my experience of IT departments, apparently not.

(No offence.)

Although technically forbidden, nobody really minds if we use FB while on lunch (Or some other non-work site like NS, which is exactly what I am doing now, at 12:22, local time). Using it during working hours is clearly a dereliction of duty, and should be quashed. It is simply for lunchtime useages that I think an outright computer-based ban is not appropriate. The office where I would like to work does have a full ban on, but I will be able to live with that without complaint.

either that or he's never worked for a company with a tight security protocal in place that knows how to find people who try to use their LAN connection to route to sites using proxy servers.

or it could be he's hinting that he uses these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_routing), which alot of SysAdmins watch out for.

which only speaks of him being unemployed or he's one of the security network people of his workplace in which he can patch the network firewall and security measures of his company to allow him access.

Ah, so I was right. He is a tool.

Sorry, but it's a pet peeve to have someone who has his head so far up the ass of technology that he can't see that others just might be thinking of other things. Speaking as a geek, the worst geek is the arrogant geek.

From my experience of IT departments, apparently not.

(No offence.)

None taken, you must have worked at some umm dodgy places.

None taken, you must have worked at some umm dodgy places.
Just rather small, non-technical companies/institutions.

To be honest, it was only the one I'm thinking of specifically. The only firm that I've worked at that dealt specifically in IT (landscape/graphic design) was such a small firm, three employees including myself, that we all self-regulated our net usage.

seriously guys, its caled a proxy server or using torpark, u guys suck for forum users

Both caught by most packet shapers ... you can still look at the content of a packet and determine a profile of usage even without taking the destination into account. (This includes CGI and script based web proxies as well as HTTP proxies)

Take into account a competent IT staff and the fact that it is easy to force local group policy that forces proxy settings for all local machines and you have a lot more problems then you took into account when making your assesment of us as forum users

Both caught by most packet shapers ... you can still look at the content of a packet and determine a profile of usage even without taking the destination into account. (This includes CGI and script based web proxies as well as HTTP proxies)

Take into account a competent IT staff and the fact that it is easy to force local group policy that forces proxy settings for all local machines and you have a lot more problems then you took into account when making your assesment of us as forum users


Heheh yeah!

Man that feels like the small bloke standing behind the big fella, with his tiny little fist shaking, and going grrr!:D

From my experience of IT departments, apparently not.

(No offence.)
You would be supprised

But even if they could it is often not worth the time/money to do so ... having a guy focus for a few weeks on getting this implemented plus the possible nessisity for hardware puts it as sometimes a more expensive venture then the simple blocking direct communications is

If you can cut it down by 50 or 60 percent its usually not worth it to pay for the rest

You would be supprised

But even if they could it is often not worth the time/money to do so ... having a guy focus for a few weeks on getting this implemented plus the possible nessisity for hardware puts it as sometimes a more expensive venture then the simple blocking direct communications is

If you can cut it down by 50 or 60 percent its usually not worth it to pay for the rest

As you say though group policies are wonderfull things. Our users can't even install a piece of software without calling me first.

Heheh yeah!



Man that feels like the small bloke standing behind the big fella, with his tiny little fist shaking, and going grrr!:D

:)

I am not saying that there are not ways around this ... there are a few that I could come up with that would take significantly more work to block (not impossible)
For example:

If they were filtering for all proxies with a packet shaper and forced GP to not allow changes to local proxies

Route around:

Local SSH tunnel to an off site Linux box that would allow transit of HTTP traffic through the local tunnel

Solution: (Assuming SSH could not be blocked or known to be the route around)

Adding a local software restriction policy (HASH not path as it is easier to lock down) as SSH clients such as PUTTY are a non install so installation rights is not a valid restriction method this would not allow me to run applications without modifying GP and add a new hash rule

Just an example ...

Ah, so I was right. He is a tool.

Sorry, but it's a pet peeve to have someone who has his head so far up the ass of technology that he can't see that others just might be thinking of other things. Speaking as a geek, the worst geek is the arrogant geek.
agreed.

Both caught by most packet shapers ... you can still look at the content of a packet and determine a profile of usage even without taking the destination into account. (This includes CGI and script based web proxies as well as HTTP proxies)

Take into account a competent IT staff and the fact that it is easy to force local group policy that forces proxy settings for all local machines and you have a lot more problems then you took into account when making your assesment of us as forum users
and one thing people don't realize, is that once detected, the tendency is NOT to act upon it right away, but to build up a profile of sites visited, time spent and all such wonderful detail. As long as the person isn't doing anything like that guy vising thousands of porn sites a day, or anything that might cause a hostile work environment, he'll be kept on untill a time that should a RIF be needed, you can bet who will be looked at first.

I have no computer at work. When I was doing straight CNA work, the only computers we had were for charting, and they ran MS-DOS. In Ghana, there's an Internet café in my town, but it's several kilometres away from the school, so it'd be a massive bother to haul over there just to check Facebook. The Internet's slow as balls anyway.

agreed.


and one thing people don't realize, is that once detected, the tendency is NOT to act upon it right away, but to build up a profile of sites visited, time spent and all such wonderful detail. As long as the person isn't doing anything like that guy vising thousands of porn sites a day, or anything that might cause a hostile work environment, he'll be kept on untill a time that should a RIF be needed, you can bet who will be looked at first.

Exactly, they build a case and wait for it to break a threshold that action HAS to be taken.

:)

I am not saying that there are not ways around this ... there are a few that I could come up with that would take significantly more work to block (not impossible)
For example:

If they were filtering for all proxies with a packet shaper and forced GP to not allow changes to local proxies

Route around:

Local SSH tunnel to an off site Linux box that would allow transit of HTTP traffic through the local tunnel

Solution: (Assuming SSH could not be blocked or known to be the route around)

Adding a local software restriction policy (HASH not path as it is easier to lock down) as SSH clients such as PUTTY are a non install so installation rights is not a valid restriction method this would not allow me to run applications without modifying GP and add a new hash rule

Just an example ...

Developer on Windows boxes have to use SSH to reach Unix boxes to do their work... that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it... so I have to have PUTTY

Erm, no. Mainly because I don't use Facebook anyway, but even if I did I wouldn't quit. I think it's blocked at my office job anyway, and my other one we had to sign up to an e-comms policy which basically banned everything (no using the internet except for explicit work purposes). Which works fine, except we in the library have one login for all staff. And each of us also has a curriculum account, meaning we can access the student server/drive. And usage isn't monitored anyway. Great policy.

Developer on Windows boxes have to use SSH to reach Unix boxes to do their work... that's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it... so I have to have PUTTY

Yeah my example was in the case of non admins it would not work directly for me either
I have several hundred firewalls I ssh manage for VPN tunnling capability and such and even more troubleshooting that is done ... you dont filter network admins

Was thinking of more like a standard user

I'm a student, so I don't really have a job.

When I become a scientist... well, I will either be too busy working (and loving it) to check the internet, or waiting for data to come in.

Facebook - nah, don't check it that often. NSG, that might be something, but I'd pull through.

I have no computer at work. When I was doing straight CNA work, the only computers we had were for charting, and they ran MS-DOS. In Ghana, there's an Internet café in my town, but it's several kilometres away from the school, so it'd be a massive bother to haul over there just to check Facebook. The Internet's slow as balls anyway.

Hmmm use Cerner greenscreens or something different? (we do lots and lots of medical at work )