Re: Need a way to see employeed surfing habits

Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I believe
it's called.

--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo





"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ec82b2ee-5936-4ddd-9bdf-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi, sorry if this in't the best the wrong group for this query. I've
> been asked to find software that will see what websites our 25
> employees are going to. Does anyone know any software that's good for
> this purpose?
>
> I do not want to have to install anything on the workstations
> themselves unless absolutely neccessary. I don't need full on
> keylogging or anything either - just simply websites viewed.
>
> Also just to complicate things further, the workstations are XP,
> Vista, and OSx too. Is there something that just scans port 80
> perhaps that would do the job? I'm using a BT Business router that
> can't log websites vistied. I don't want to install ISA either
> really.
>
> Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:04:34 +0100, "Jon"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Start by showing all your employees exactly which websites *YOU* have been
>visiting over the last month - warts n all. Accountable leadership I believe
>it's called.
>
>--
>Jon

I'd go a little further.

1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
maximum performance.

2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.

"+Bob+" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

> I'd go a little further.
>
> 1. Start by telling management that they are using an archaic
> management style generally known as "theory X". With that style of
> management, managers believe that employees are generally lazy and
> won't work hard unless strictly supervised under a narrow set of rules
> designed to keep their noses to the grindstone. Suggest that they go
> look up "Theory Y" and learn what most smart companies figured out
> about 40 years ago regarding motivating employees and obtaining
> maximum performance.
>
> 2. Go prepare your resume. You don't want to work for a bunch of dolts
> that spend their time worrying about what web sites employees are
> browsing instead of concentrating on serving the company's customers.
>



Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any website
you like as long we approve of it" management at its worst. Penalising any
bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions in
obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.

In times gone by such non-brainwashed people would be hailed as a heros /
heroines. Now, they're labelled as 'dangerous', and wheeled off to the
dismissal room as an 'enemies of the corporation'.

Judge employees by their *performance* and by who gets *results*, rather
than seeking to stifle their mental freedom. The more intelligent and
valuable employees will be thinking outside of the box anyway.

I'd certainly be preparing my resume, and looking longingly at the exit
door, if I were working there.

Poor employees.

--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any website
>you like as long we approve of it" management at its worst. Penalising any
>bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions in
>obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.

That's nonsense. First of all, you have no right as an employee
to use the employer network for any purpose not specifically allowed,
nor do you have an automatic right of privacy. If I lend you my car
on the condition that you only use premium gas am I being a tyrannical
manager? You're free to go borrow someone else's car you know.

Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
employer liable for the subsequent civil suit. Don't blame your
management. Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to profit
from being offended.

Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
security issues involved. Think of working for one of those three letter
government agencies.

The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
simply their control of their own private property.

"the wharf rat" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:gucrjf$bkr$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> That's nonsense. First of all, you have no right as an employee
> to use the employer network for any purpose not specifically allowed,
> nor do you have an automatic right of privacy. If I lend you my car
> on the condition that you only use premium gas am I being a tyrannical
> manager? You're free to go borrow someone else's car you know.


'Tyranny', using your car analogy, would go beyond following basic
instructions like deciding which fuel is put into the vehicle. It would be
putting tracking devices that log every movement of that driver + car
(conditions under which many work today). Big difference.

People have been driving goods + people successfully from A to B since the
invention of the motor car without such Big Brother devices. And yes you do
have a right to basic human privacy, which isn't something given to you by
your employer, nor something for which you need to ask their permission.


>
> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
> you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
> employer liable for the subsequent civil suit. Don't blame your
> management. Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to
> profit
> from being offended.
>
> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
> security issues involved. Think of working for one of those three letter
> government agencies.
>
> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
> for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
> simply their control of their own private property.
>


A crime is a crime anywhere, whether it's committed in the workplace or not.

Whose property is used isn't the issue. If an employee murders a colleague
in the workplace using a knife from the employer's kitchen, it's that
employee who is held accountable, and not the employer.

The only 100% way to protect from workplace crimes would be to not employ
anyone in the first place. It comes down to trust and employing the right
people .

--
Jon

Just Say No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EehZHNvLJuo

In article <#(E-Mail Removed)>,
Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>'Tyranny', using your car analogy, would go beyond following basic
>instructions like deciding which fuel is put into the vehicle. It would be
>putting tracking devices that log every movement of that driver + car

How can that be tyrannical? It's my car! Tyrannical would be
putting those things in YOUR car.

>A crime is a crime anywhere, whether it's committed in the workplace or not.

No, for instance, you can't breach your fiduciary responsibiliy
to your cat... Well, assuming that your cat isn't a stockholder...

>Whose property is used isn't the issue. If an employee murders a colleague
>in the workplace using a knife from the employer's kitchen, it's that
>employee who is held accountable, and not the employer.

Actually that's less than completely true. The legal
principle involved is called "respondeat superior" and imposes
a certain amount of vicarious liability on an employer.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:01:19 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (the wharf
rat) wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any website
>>you like as long we approve of it" management at its worst. Penalising any
>>bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions in
>>obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.
>
> That's nonsense. First of all, you have no right as an employee
>to use the employer network for any purpose not specifically allowed,
>nor do you have an automatic right of privacy.

Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job. It's not
treating them like captives who must be watched at all times.

> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
>you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
>employer liable for the subsequent civil suit. Don't blame your
>management. Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to profit
>from being offended.

As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set. Sure,
you need a 40 page manual written in conjunction with the corporate
lawyers. You don't need to monitor people.

In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
skilled HR lawyer.

> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
>security issues involved. Think of working for one of those three letter
>government agencies.

Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate
reason for that - it's not there to because of poor management
(although the military is hardly an example of good management), it's
there for security.

> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
>for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
>simply their control of their own private property.

You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
valuable employees.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y

"+Bob+" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 22:01:19 +0000 (UTC), (E-Mail Removed) (the wharf
> rat) wrote:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>Jon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yep, it's tyrannical 'Henry Ford style' 'theory x' "you can have any
>>>website
>>>you like as long we approve of it" management at its worst. Penalising
>>>any
>>>bright sparks who decide to think outside of the box; who find solutions
>>>in
>>>obscure portions of the www that management doesn't anticipate.
>>
>> That's nonsense. First of all, you have no right as an employee
>>to use the employer network for any purpose not specifically allowed,
>>nor do you have an automatic right of privacy.
>
> Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job. It's not
> treating them like captives who must be watched at all times.
>
>> Secondly, in today's legal climate if I accidentally glimpse
>>you accidentally viewing a website I consider offensive it can leave the
>>employer liable for the subsequent civil suit. Don't blame your
>>management. Blame the people who insist on legislating your right to
>>profit
>>from being offended.
>
> As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set. Sure,
> you need a 40 page manual written in conjunction with the corporate
> lawyers. You don't need to monitor people.
>
> In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
> network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
> sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
> then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
> skilled HR lawyer.
>
>> Lastly, depending on the nature of the work there may be real
>>security issues involved. Think of working for one of those three letter
>>government agencies.
>
> Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
> where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
> differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
> sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
> personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
> more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate
> reason for that - it's not there to because of poor management
> (although the military is hardly an example of good management), it's
> there for security.
>
>> The bottom line is that unless you're a star or a relative you work
>>for someone on their terms, and those terms are niether good nor evil but
>>simply their control of their own private property.
>
> You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
> you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
> valuable employees.

Only thing is, Paul was asked to do this for someone, he is not the employer
and hence these speculations are beyond his scope. He simply needed
constructive suggestions (I am not looking for trouble, just trying to keep
it straight).
<H>.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_X_and_theory_Y
>

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
+Bob+ <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Smart managers know what motivates people to do a good job.

Stock options!

And a title. Titles are always good.

>As long as the employer issues regulations, they are all set.

Well, no, not really. I mean, I'm not a lawyer, right? but
I'm looking right at West's Business Law Chapter 32 Section 11 and an
employer can definitely be liable for torts committed by employees while
working. There's a famous case where a cashier at Walmart got in a fight
with a customer who thought the line was too slow. Walmart actually had
a rule that said cashiers aren't allowed to fight with customers and fired
her on the spot but the store still got sued under the principle of
respondeat superior...

That's why everyone does background checks. They don't care so
much about what you might do to them as what would happen if they hired
someone with say a record of child molestation and you molested a child
customer... Lol, even if they have a rule that says employees aren't
allowed molest child customers.

>In fact, monitoring sets you up to be sued. If you claim that your
>network is "safe" and you then fail to keep it that way, you can be
>sued. If you simply give employees regulations and they violate them,
>then they personally are responsible for the violation. Talk to a
>skilled HR lawyer.

Well, ya know? I have. Ha ha :-) that's how I know the Latin :-)
Also why I have West's handy...

>Irrelevant. This is a case of an employer wanting to know who goes
>where. That's not operational security. That's handled very
>differently. Everyone I know who works for the DIA, CIA, or DOD in a
>sensitive area has standing orders not to use the Internet for
>personal reasons and serious penalties for doing so. In addition, the
>more sensitive areas are fully isolated. However, there's a legitimate

It certainly is operational security. It's access control.

Look, I've been ISSO and ISSM for half a dozen sites. Even
a site that just handles For Official Use Only does more than just make
rules. I mean, think about it. Don't you think an enemy agent would
look you right in the eye and promise not to leak information, scout's
honor? Lol :-) So part of your job is to make sure they can't do it even if
they try, and another part is to monitor the network so you know if they're
doing it.

IMHO you've (all) got this sort of backwards. Nobody does stuff
like this just because they want to snoop, or because they want you to KNOW
you're being watched. The only time anyone goes through all this trouble
is because they feel that it's what they need to do to ensure information
security. That's a management decision and a management responsibilty,
and as an employee it's both rude and counterproductive to sit there and
mutter about fascists. You knew what the deal was when you signed up, right?

It's like going to a nudist camp (excuse me I mean a clothes free
resort :-). You KNOW there's going to be naked people and you KNOW you're
going to have to undress so wouldn't it be pretty silly to voluntarily sign
up and then complain that naked guys are looking at your legs?

>You're missing the point. The real bottom line is that this is not how
>you treat people if you want them to be loyal, creative, motivated,
>valuable employees.

No, I think you've still got it backwards. Loyal, creative,
motivated people understand that this isn't anything personal and
that it wouldn't be done if the people responsible for the success of
the project didn't think it was necessary.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 20:50:19 -0400, "webster72n"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Only thing is, Paul was asked to do this for someone, he is not the employer
>and hence these speculations are beyond his scope. He simply needed
>constructive suggestions (I am not looking for trouble, just trying to keep
>it straight).
><H>.

Agreed... but the advice I originally posted is for him. Sometimes you
need to stand on principle. Other times you compromise for a buck.
Only Paul can decide what instance this is.



I