Staff use of PCs

Is there any chance that someone could point me to a source of
reference that would show the terms of a computer acceptable usage
policy to be drawn up for a small company? Outside the terms of
reference of this group I know, but was not sure where to start on
this one.

David Bradley

David Bradley wrote:
> Is there any chance that someone could point me to a source of
> reference that would show the terms of a computer acceptable usage
> policy to be drawn up for a small company? Outside the terms of
> reference of this group I know, but was not sure where to start on
> this one.
>
> David Bradley

Try the following link.

http://www.surfcontrol.com/resources/aup/

The Guide to Developing Your Company’s Acceptable Use Policy (.pdf)
gives an example AUP towards the end.

These guides are for email and internet access.

Also check out the Guides & Tools section.

~bob

"David Bradley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Is there any chance that someone could point me to a source of
> reference that would show the terms of a computer acceptable usage
> policy to be drawn up for a small company? Outside the terms of
> reference of this group I know, but was not sure where to start on
> this one.
>
> David Bradley

Doesn't give you one, but explains how (and why) you should go about forming
your own:

http://www.acas.org.uk/publications/al06.html

On 14/12/2004 10:54 David Bradley got up from the bar and shouted..:
> Is there any chance that someone could point me to a source of
> reference that would show the terms of a computer acceptable usage
> policy to be drawn up for a small company? Outside the terms of
> reference of this group I know, but was not sure where to start on
> this one.
>
> David Bradley

I have yet to see a company policy that defines a well thought out
policy that does not hinder employees use of the net for work purposes.

The biggest problem being the "1 size fits all" rule that most employers
adopt.

The company where I work, we have a varied mix of skillsets, both
technical, IT, managerial and admin, and 1 set of very specific rules to
cater for everybody.

The obvious stuff is easy to handle, porn etc, obviously outlawed, as
are other obvious dubious sites, but it's the grey areas. If I visit
The Register for example to read IT news, it's inline with my job, but
for someone else, that same site may be a hobbie.

The other consideration, is try add some leanancy into any policy.
Having in-flexible rules are determental. For example, if you allowed
your staff to use the net during lunchtime or before after work, "for
reasonable personal useage", then it is less likely they will use it for
personal use during working hours. Perhaps define some example of
personal useage.

1 last point, webmail. This can be a tricky one. On onehand, you have
the virus issue, where very few company virus checkers work with web
based email, and you are reliant upon service like hotmail etc, to scan
mail. Some of course still don't offer this. The problem with blocking
webmail, is that exployes are then tempted to use their work email
address to email friends etc, which if something "dodgey" is sent,
reflects bad on the company rather than the individual, had they sent if
from their personal webmail account.

Comments?

--
"This dog don't give a feck..."

On 2004-12-14, Black Shuck <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> The biggest problem being the "1 size fits all" rule that most
> employers adopt.

My employer has a policy that states you're not allowed to load any
software other than that installed by the administrators, so that's
all of our technical staff out of jobs then! It also states that
you're not allowed to introduce any malicious code or programs from
disreputable sources to the network, so that's me out of a job
(security consultant) twice over! We're also not allowed to run any
scanning programs or take part in any activity that could be construed
as hacking, oh dear I'm on the dole again then!

I refused to sign the new terms and conditions until they gave me a
covering letter, but I was the only one in the whole company to do it
so I'm pretty much the only person not breaching the code of
conduct..

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 08:36:47 +0000, Ian Rawlings
<(E-Mail Removed)> strung together this:

>I refused to sign the new terms and conditions until they gave me a
>covering letter, but I was the only one in the whole company to do it
>so I'm pretty much the only person not breaching the code of
>conduct..

Well, if it's a condition of employment, (which contracts are), then
if you're employed you're bound by the terms and conditions whether
you sign them or not.

I tried that once but was advised by my solicitor at the time that it
didn't make any difference if I signed it or not, it's a bit like the
law, you didn't sign anything to say you won't break the law, but you
still get arrested if you break it.
--

SJW
Please reply to group or use 'usenet' in email subject

On 2004-12-15, Lurch <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Well, if it's a condition of employment, (which contracts are), then
> if you're employed you're bound by the terms and conditions whether
> you sign them or not.

I did sign them in the end, with a signed waiver from the technical
director stating that I need exemption in order to do my job. If I
get sacked for breaking the Ts&Cs then given that they're incompatible
with my job I can apparently take them to court for unfair dismissal
as the Ts&Cs are unreasonably restrictive considering the role I'm
asked to perform.

--
For every expert, there is an equal but opposite expert

On 14 Dec 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband,
Black Shuck <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Comments?

excellent summary of the problems with trying to lay down policy
especially acknowledging that some people might consider use of
the internet as a "right" and the las part about webmail is of
great importance - how many company mail addresses get junk as
a result of a 'friend' signing up an address as a joke ! PGM.



--
PlusNet <http://tinyurl.com/24ymz> - I recommend them and save some cash.

My other ISP is UK Free Software Network <www.ukfsn.org>
UKFSN passes all profits to Free Software projects in the UK.

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:12:38 +0000, Lurch wrote:

>>I refused to sign the new terms and conditions until they gave me a
>>covering letter, but I was the only one in the whole company to do it
>>so I'm pretty much the only person not breaching the code of
>>conduct..
>
> Well, if it's a condition of employment, (which contracts are), then

a contract is only a contract if both parties agree to it. that's basic
contract law. one party to a contract can't impose additional terms on the
other after the contract has been made.

> if you're employed you're bound by the terms and conditions whether
> you sign them or not.

only if you've agreed to them. signing or not is irrelevant - a verbal
contract is equally binding. if in your original contract of employment
you agreed that your employers could change the terms of your employment,
then they can. if you didn't agree to that, then they can't change them
without your agreement.

> I tried that once but was advised by my solicitor at the time that it
> didn't make any difference if I signed it or not, it's a bit like the
> law, you didn't sign anything to say you won't break the law, but you
> still get arrested if you break it.

i hope you didn't pay that solicitor! that's complete nonsense. the
"rule of law" is a completely unrelated to contracts or terms of
employment. effectively, the "law" is imposed on you by force - the queen
and her government have considerably more power than you and therefore can
push you around. no more no less.

the same can be true with employers, but it doesn't have to be.

will

On 15/12/2004 18:06 Peter M got up from the bar and shouted..:
> On 14 Dec 2004 in uk.telecom.broadband,
> Black Shuck <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>>Comments?
>
>
> excellent summary of the problems with trying to lay down policy
> especially acknowledging that some people might consider use of
> the internet as a "right" and the las part about webmail is of
> great importance - how many company mail addresses get junk as
> a result of a 'friend' signing up an address as a joke ! PGM.
>
>
>

Fortuantly, the company I now work for have a sensible attitute to web
access, that benefits the company. being a technology based company,
having a sensible and not too restrictive policy is quite important, and
because of that, very few employees "take the piss", those that do
cross the line get a very severe warning, if not worse. The line is
quite well defined without being too restrictive.

--
"This dog don't give a feck..."