Federal Judges Take a Stance Against Workplace Monitoring 185
parvati writes: "The NYTimes is reporting that federal judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (the largest of the 12 regional circuit courts) disabled software on their office computers that monitored downloading of music, streaming video, and pornography--software that had been installed by the Washington-based Administrative Office of the Courts after a survey showed that 3-7% of the judicial computer traffic included streaming video and the like. The judges say that they are concerned about "the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage." The AOC is not pleased."
Leonidas Ralph Mecham (Score:1)
A google search for Leonidas Ralph Mecham turns his name up many times in all CAPS. Must be a prat =)
Re:Leonidas Ralph Mecham (Score:2)
1. They know very little about what they are supposedly in charge of.. Example: his whining about how turning off the "watch-the-judge" software will allow hackers in.
2. they are power freaks. They got their job by either stabbing others in the back or because noone else wanted the job so the powerfreak took it. Generally these types of people are Social misfits.
3. Whiney. Almost every one of them get pissy and act like 9 year olds when their "orders" are countermanded. They hate employees that tell them to go to hell when they say " I order you to do this" and they pout and whine when the Unin files greviances against them for being a-holes or just plain stupid.
Go to any level of government, local to federal.. These are people who could not make it in the private sector, and act like spoiled brats. and it is prevalent in any position where they are over any amount of people.
Kozinski makes Sense (plus full text of article) (Score:1, Interesting)
Note that in the article, Judge Kozinski is reported to state in a memorandum that he believes monitoring for content is a violation of anti-wiretap statute. This is independent of whether the judges themselves or the judiciary employees want to avoid monitoring for idealistic and legalistic reasons or simply as an end-run around being caught downloading MP3s, AVIs, inappropriate content for the workplace, or simply stealing the bandwidth provided to them as a matter of course for their use in their employment. Don't forget that the judges are employed by us (the taxpayers) via the government to administer and adjudicate the laws that are created by the legislative and executive branches that we choose to elect.
Kozinski's point is actually a very good thing. He asserts that regardless of why he or the judiciary may oppose this monitoring of employee web usage, he has a valid point because this sort of invasion of privacy is violating the anti-wiretap laws.
This may have an interesting effect on the case before FBI's keystroke-logging of Scarfo's computer to acquire his PGP key.
August 8, 2001
Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- A group of federal employees who believed that the monitoring of their office computers was a major violation of their privacy recently staged an insurrection, disabling the software used to check on them and suggesting that the monitoring was illegal and unethical.
This was not just a random bunch of bureaucrats but a group of federal judges who are still engaged in a dispute with the office in Washington that administers the judicial branch and that had installed the software to detect downloading of music, streaming video and pornography.
It is a conflict that reflects the anxiety of workers at all levels at a time when technology allows any employer to examine each keystroke made on an office computer. In this case, the concern over the loss of privacy comes from the very individuals, federal judges, who will shape the rules of the new information era.
The insurrection took root this spring in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco and the largest of the nation's 12 regional circuits, covering 9 Western states and two territories. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the ultimate governing body of the courts, is to meet on Sept. 11 to resolve the matter.
The conflict between the circuit judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts, a small bureaucracy in Washington, deteriorated to a point that a council of the circuit's appeals and district judges ordered their technology staff to disconnect the monitoring program on May 24 for a week until a temporary compromise was reached. Because the Ninth Circuit's was also linked to the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, the shutdown affected about a third of the country and about 10,000 court employees, including more than 700 active and semiretired judges.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who runs the Administrative Office of the Courts, and who ordered the monitoring of all federal court workers, said in a March 5 memorandum that the software was to enhance security and reduce computer use that was not related to judicial work and that was clogging the system. A survey by his office, he wrote, "has revealed that as much as 3 to 7 percent of the judiciary browser's traffic consists of streaming media such as radio and video broadcasts, which are unlikely to relate to official business."
Officials in the judicial branch on both sides of the issue provided several internal memorandums written as the dispute continued over the weeks.
After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at risk," he wrote on June 15.
Mr. Mecham warned in that memorandum that on the days before the software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran.
But Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit responded that the concerns were overblown and that the circuit's technical people carefully monitored computer activity during the week that the software was disabled.
In a June 29 memorandum, she said that there was no evidence that the electronic firewall used to block hacking had been breached and suggested that Mr. Mecham had exaggerated the potential of a security breach because having hundreds of attempted breaches per day was routine and routinely blocked.
The Ninth Circuit disconnected the software, she wrote, because the monitoring policy was not driven by concern over overloading the system but Mr. Mecham's concern over "content detection." Many employees had been disciplined, she noted, because the software turned up evidence of such things as viewing pornography, although they had not been given any clear notice of the court's computer use policy.
Moreover, she wrote, the judiciary may have violated the law.
"We are concerned about the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage," she wrote. Her memorandum said that the judiciary could be liable to lawsuits and damages because the software might have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person who intentionally intercepts "any wire, oral or electronic communication."
She noted that the Ninth Circuit had ruled just this year that the law was violated when an employer accessed an employee Web site. In fact, the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court.
Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, drafted and distributed an 18-page legal memorandum arguing that the monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute. [italics added]
Judge Kozinski, widely known for his libertarian views, said the court employees who were disciplined, an estimated three dozen, could be entitled to monetary damages if they brought a lawsuit.
A spokesman for Mr. Mecham said that the software could not identify specific employees but workstations. When unauthorized use was detected, Mr. Mecham's deputy, Clarence Lee Jr., wrote to the chief judge of the district, urging that the employee who used the workstation be identified and disciplined. One such letter includes an appendix listing the Web sites that employee had visited, some of them pornographic. There is no evidence that any alleged abuse of the system involved judges.
Judge Kozinski said: "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private sphere."
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University Law School, author of a recent book on privacy, "The Unwanted Gaze" (Vintage 2001), said, "It's fascinating that the courts have to grapple with these issues so close to home." The law is evolving, he said, adding: "This drama with the judges reminds us of how thin the privacy protections are. There's a real choice right now whether e-mail and Web browsing should be regarded like the telephone or a postcard."
Judge Edwin L. Nelson, who is chairman of a judges' committee that deals with computer issues, said in an interview that his group met last week and drafted proposals to deal with monitoring. Judge Nelson would not discuss the proposals but they are almost certain to resemble policies used in the rest of the federal government, in which clear notice is given to computer users that they may be monitored.
Jim Flyzik, vice chairman of an interagency group that considers computer privacy issues in the federal government, said that each department had its own policy but that clear and unambiguous notification of monitoring was usually an element.
In the private sector, a survey by the American Management Association this year found that 63 percent of companies monitored employees' computer use. END OF ARTICLE
Goes to show you can't assume common sense (Score:2, Interesting)
Our CEO's feeling is that we should not have to tell our employees that using a company provided PC and Internet bandwidth during the workday to surf porn it not OK. With the last few rounds of discipline however, we have put out a notice to all employees, the boss put out a letter to supervisors requiring them to council their staff and we initiated a user statement of agreement that is signed prior to being issued an account.
All that is great CYA. It is disappointing to see folks who should be setting the example protect the immature habits of a few. It is crap like this that is that is causing American jobs to go elsewhere. I am not for worker abuse, but like one of my bosses used to tell me "When you name is on the bottom of your paycheck, you will get a vote in workplace policy".
People don't read. (Score:1)
WORKplace inet monitoring is absolutly acceptable (Score:1)
Re:WORKplace inet monitoring is absolutly acceptab (Score:2)
I wouldn't have a problem with being monitored if it was spelt out in my employment contract that I would be. If I cared about that, I could then insist on higher pay, or not take the job, if I didn't want to be monitored.
The problem occurs if employers can just start monitoring without informing employees, and without creating the expectation that they will follow through, so that employees can decide for themselves whether to accept it or not.
Re:WORKplace inet monitoring is absolutly acceptab (Score:2)
Re:WORKplace inet monitoring is absolutly acceptab (Score:1)
2nd, what about if someone is looking up something during say, a lunch break. Or during mandatory paid break time. (in Oregon, the law requires something like 1 15-min paid break for every 4 hours working)
There are, of course, things that should and should not be done. If your entire office is on one DSL link, don't be downloading ISOs etc. It's called common sense, and everyone should use it.
Re:WORKplace inet monitoring is absolutly acceptab (Score:1)
What's the difference between my boss listening to me talk on the phone by standing near me and installing a wire tap? What about if I have some good reason for doing something, not just being some statistic. If a boss is looking over your shoulder, they may understand _why_ you are doing something. The fact that according to statistics you contacted a porn site 3 months ago can get you fired, even though that porn site was a re-direct from another site that was one letter off of some other site that _was_ business related.
I'd love to see the rule that says your employer is required to allow you to surf the web and use their network while you are on break.
Well, at _my_ job I'm allowed to browse the web whenever I like, or read a book etc. If nobody is asking for my help, I can do pretty much whatever I want. But my job isn't like most, so I wasn't trying to be specific to me. I'm at work right now, and my boss is very happy to let me read /.
I'm not saying that an employer sould be _required_ to let someone browse the web on break, but I think it's a good idea. You have a break, you decide you want to look up something, so you do it. It's called employee morale.
At least come up with some real arguments.
See above, employee morale sinks if the employees think bosses are checking up on every little thing they do. If there seems to be a problem, there are other ways of dealing with it than "everyone's a criminal, we're monitoring you, trust the computer, the computer is your friend."
This is WRONG (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This is WRONG (Score:2)
If you had phone sex with your lover from the office phone, it would be just as inappropriate as if you were surfing porn or boinking a co-worker in the supply closet. However, a company cannot ethically monitor it's employees just because their employees may be doing somthing inappropriate on company time.
If a company wants to monitor IP traffic, it should be held to the same legal standards as one that wants to bug the telephones or put up spy cameras. Even at the office, there are certian expectations of personal privacy which an employer may not violate.
Hurrah, But... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wait a second here. I read this to mean that it was ruled a violation of privacy to visit someone's website? This seems a bit far in the other direction. Does anyone have any more information? I am firmly against workplace monitoring, but at the same time, I can't imagine how some one could post a web page and not expect visitors.
-db
Re:Hurrah, But... (Score:2, Funny)
You never worked for a dotcom startup then?
Ack! (Score:2, Insightful)
As a former manager of a staff of phone support techs, this doesn't sound good. Privacy doesn't (or shouldn't) apply in cases where you're using company products to conduct company business. You're there to work, and they have every right to see what you're doing when you're doing it.
I know that monitoring software (via software pretty similar to VNC but neither beer-nor-speech free) helped us get rid of a few folks who were surfing porn, netsexing, and even downloading 1337 h@><0r utilities. I think once we even stopped a rep from verbally abusing a customer via a trouble ticket response because we caught him typing the message. Without these tools, they would have just minimized the windows and the company would have been open to liability. Now, if this precedent applies to all monitoring of workstations, companies are far less able to enforce their employees' behavior, for which the employer is accountable. In short, bunk.
Re:Ack! I agree (Score:2, Interesting)
Note that in the article, Judge Kozinski is reported to state in a memorandum that he believes monitoring for content is a violation of anti-wiretap statute. This is independent of whether the judges themselves or the judiciary employees want to avoid monitoring for idealistic and legalistic reasons or simply as an end-run around being caught downloading MP3s, AVIs, inappropriate content for the workplace, or simply stealing the bandwidth provided to them as a matter of course for their use in their employment. Don't forget that the judges are employed by us (the taxpayers) via the government to administer and adjudicate the laws that are created by the legislative and executive branches that we choose to elect.
I didn't elect them to use workplace time and equipment for personal use. Now I agree with Kozinski that if this policy was not well-articulated, then it is wrong for monitoring to be allowed to occur. But I also feel that it is not appropriate to suck bandwidth or waste time on the company dime. Especially when that company dime came from my pocket via taxes.
I also feel that if the company or gov't office allows people to use telephones to make personal calls, they ought to allow some leeway in using internet bandwidth for personal use.
But since it would be inappropriate to use the office telephone system to call Mabel in Australia every day from the AOC office in the U.S.A., it would be just as inappropriate to waste huge amounts of bandwidth for MP3's (unless you are Judge Marilyn Patel, working on the Napster case), porn (unless you are working on a porn-related case), or even voice-over-IP phone calls (unless you are going to work on that case that ATT, MCI, et al, all WANT to file!).
Helloooo!! (Score:4, Funny)
My workplace monitors IP traffic left, right and sideways.
My thoughts on the matter...?
Well, lessee, <tap>,<tap> ...areyou listening, OK!
Memorandum to Chief Judges, July 11, 2001 (Score:5, Informative)
To: All Chief Judges, United States Courts
From: Chief Judge Mary M. Schroeder
Re: Clarification of AO Correspondence on Intrusion Detection System Shutdown
You have received a memorandum from Director Mecham dated June 15, 2001, regarding the Administrative Office's use of intrusion detection software on the Data Communications Network (DCN). This memorandum will provide you with additional information about why the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit directed that this software be disconnected for a brief period. Before doing so, let me emphasize two points:
1. The security of our computer systems has not been compromised. The firewall that protects the Internet gateway for the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits was not breached during the few days that the intrusion detection software was inactive. Our computer staff has assiduously investigated every rumored firewall breach both within and outside the Ninth Circuit. Thus far, every report of an incident has proven to be groundless.
2. All the Ninth Circuit seeks is a responsible, common sense resolution of the issues involved in Internet monitoring, after careful deliberation by the Judicial Conference. Internet Security The computer and networking equipment that permits courts in the Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits to access the Internet is located in San Francisco. These Internet access servers are controlled remotely from the AO offices in Washington, D.C. The servers are protected by a security system (hardware and software) that establishes a firewall between the DCN and the greater Internet. The firewall prevents unauthorized persons (hackers) from gaining access to the DCN and PACER networks. The servers also are equipped with an intrusion detection system, consisting of internal and external sensors, which enables the AO to detect hacking attempts. The intrusion detection system has some limited capacity to stop hackers, but is not a substitute for the firewall.
The best analogy is to a locked door and a surveillance camera. It is the door that keeps intruders out. The surveillance camera simply keeps track of who tried to enter and when. At no time has the firewall protecting the DCN been deactivated. Nor is there any evidence that the firewall has been penetrated. Our systems staff hosts the Internet websites for courts in the three circuits. We have contacted all the systems managers in the three circuits and none of them report any evidence of intrusion or damage to their court web sites. Furthermore, the current debate has nothing to do with the PACER network on which the court Pacernet, Electronic Case Filing, and Internet web servers reside, a point that is confused in Director Mecham's June 15 memorandum. These websites are protected by a separate arm of the intrusion detection system, which was unaffected by the actions of our judicial council. The PACER network's intrusion detection sensor was never touched, and thus continually operational during the period in question.
Internet Monitoring
The intrusion detection system also can be used for purposes unrelated to security, such as use of Internet bandwidth (capacity). In this case, the AO had configured part of the system to identify individual computers within the DCN that had been used to access Internet sites dealing with pornography, music, stock trading, and gambling. Information gleaned from this surveillance was being used by the AO to seek disciplinary action against court employees. On May 23-24, 2001, AO monitoring was discussed by both the Executive Committee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit. Reaction from both bodies was sharply negative. The Executive Committee adopted a resolution urging the Judicial Council to direct that the relevant internal intrusion detection system be disconnected until such time as the AO agreed to use it for security monitoring only. The resolution was passed unanimously by the Judicial Council. The circuit executive immediately disconnected the relevant internal intrusion detection system and notified the chief judges of the Eighth and Tenth Circuits and the AO of this action. As it turned out, the relevant portion of the intrusion detection system had shut down on its own sometime over the previous five days. This shutdown apparently went unnoticed by AO systems staff, which is responsible for DCN monitoring, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Our Reasons
The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit took these actions for the following reasons:
1. We are concerned about the propriety, and even the legality, of monitoring Internet usage by court employees. A non-frivolous argument can be made that such activity violates the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2511, which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person "who intentionally intercepts . . . any wire, oral or electronic communication." This is of particular concern in our Circuit because of the construction given the Act in Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 236 F. 3d 1035, 1046 (9th Cir. 2001), which found liability when an employer accessed an employee website. The Act defines "electronic communication" quite broadly, including "any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, date or intelligence of any nature." 18 U.S.C. 2510(12).
2. We are particularly concerned that inadequate notice about the practice of monitoring had been provided to the judges and court staff. Most judges felt that surveillance of individual Internet activity as a means of enforcing an Internet policy without notice to the employee was inappropriate. If such an activity were to be put in place, it ought to be the result of official action of the Judicial Conference with notification to court staff.
3. We believe that there had been inadequate discussion about this policy and practice by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Indeed, it appeared to us that surveillance of employees and possibly even judges had been initiated without specific authority from the Judicial Conference or the Executive Committee. Judges were also concerned that the policy had been implemented without the input and consideration given other similar actions, such as the protection of privacy in electronic case filing. Many judges were concerned about the potential scope of the monitoring. The system has the potential to allow real time observation of individual Internet activity. Indeed, virtually the only function of the "inside" sensor is to monitor the Internet activities of court personnel, not to track incoming Internet activity. Much of the monitoring was not driven by bandwidth concerns, but content detection. Judges believed that a careful policy needed to be in place defining the scope of any monitoring and disclosure of monitoring results.
4. We are concerned about chief judges being asked to report to the AO on actions they may have taken. This is particularly troublesome without Judicial Conference policy directives. Why should a chief judge respond to the AO? Moreover, if a chief judge chooses not to respond, what would the AO believe is the appropriate next step? What is the basis for this? Since there is a "perk" aspect to some Internet use, how much privacy should be given to courtpersonnel? If an employee engages in phone sex at work or places bets over the phone to his/her bookie, it would be embarrassing to the Judiciary, but we do not monitor all Judiciary personnel's phone calls to try to catch such potentially embarrassing conduct.
5. We are concerned that the definition of "inappropriate use" is too broad or might otherwise not be accepted by many chief judges. We are not convinced that downloading music or video files compromised bandwidth to the extent meriting monitoring. Many judges believe that less intrusive methods of administering an Internet policy ought to be pursued before actually conducting surveillance on employee Internet activity. Most court units have only just begun to educate and inform court staff about Internet concerns, particularly bandwidth usage. For example, many employees who were simply innocently unaware of bandwidth consequences would "stream" audio newscasts, particularly during the recent election and aftermath. In many court units, this practice was not against any official policy. Some judges believe that we ought to give court units an opportunity to address this in the first instance before monitoring.
6. Many judges were concerned that recording and monitoring information kept by the AO would be an inevitable part of any Senate confirmation process. In addition, some judges observed that if limiting embarrassment were the goal, we were creating great potential for embarrassment by intercepting, organizing and summarizing this material.
The Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit fully supports legitimate system monitoring to detect hackers and outside threats to the security of the DCN. It believes that to the extent that the Committee on Automation and Technology and the Judicial Conference of the United States authorized any monitoring to date, it was for purposes of detecting hackers. The council does not believe that the judiciary leadership intended the process to be used to monitor the activity of judges and court personnel with the concomitant disciplinary action
sought by the AO.Next Steps
The Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States has directed the AO to cease monitoring for non-security purposes and asked the Conference's Automation and Technology Committee to develop a policy before the full Conference meets. The Automation and Technology Committee has formed a subcommittee that is looking into the issue.
Our need as a Judiciary to discuss these important issues and formulate an informed, legally viable and necessary policy is indeed the original point raised many months ago by our circuit executive with the Administrative Office. We gain nothing by disparaging each others' motives or by engaging in threats, but gain everything from a full, accurate, and candid discussion of the important issues at the heart of this problem. We in the Ninth Circuit welcome the opportunity to participate in that discussion.
My question: (Score:2)
Think of it this way: Users should have the ability to maximize performance and reduce overhead, just like admins.
Being monitored in the workplace.. (Score:2, Funny)
Being monitored in the workplace isn't so bad..Just ask Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer [system26.com].
Re:Being monitored in the workplace.. (Score:1, Informative)
i hate being tricked into going there!
Owner control (Score:1)
Let's not stop here!! (Score:1)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Informative)
Is a company monitoring your actions while at work illegal? Well, if they notify you upon receipt of employment they will not tolerate certain acts (sexual harrassment, firearms, smoking, downloading streaming video) then you have a choice. Take that job and follow the rules... or don't. It's that simple. Since the equipment you are using belongs to the employers and the bandwidth you are using belongs to the employers, they have the right to state any policy they want.
Monitoring isn't bad. As a security guy, we have to monitor people daily. For instance, we watch any downloads >10MB and do content filtering... sometimes we need to investigate exactly what a user has been downloading. We watch files over 10MB because there isn't much that is downloaded over 10MB, and we only have maybe 25-30 legit downloads per day that are that size. Sometimes we see someone downloading a
It IS in our company policy that using company computers for downloading pornography is illegal and all employees are made aware of this through a signed statement they return to H.R. upon being hired and through a mention of it at orientation at their first day of work.
It isn't illegal to do this, unless the company doesn't tell you they are doing it. If they use a "full disclosure" policy regarding things like this, then this is and should be completely legal.
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that NOBODY notifies employees of policy concurrently with the offer. The policy notification only happens *after* you have started the new job, when they have you over a barrel. And they change policies freely during your employment, leaving you no choice but to accept or walk out. This is a significant power differential, and it suggests that these are not "contracts freely entered into", but that there is some measure of coercion involved.
For further proof, imagine asking for a copy of the employee handbook in an interview. Do you think you'll get that offer? I'll bet it wouldn't help your chances. That says volumes about the coercive nature of this so-called "contract".
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
The company isn't "out to get you". In fact, they prefer to NOT have to replace you. To replace you would cost 2 to 2.5 times your salary. Why would they WANT to get rid of you? If you feel you were wrongly terminated, that's one thing and you can take them to court for that, but to blindly believe they just want to get rid of people is folklore. (Not to say some companies don't or don't play tricks, but again, time for a lawsuit if you feel you were not terminated correctly.)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:1)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:1)
downloads > 10mb make no sense (particularly as thousands of pr0n mpgs are 10Mb (and I know cos I have them here)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that in the article, Judge Kozinski is reported to state in a memorandum that he believes monitoring for content is a violation of anti-wiretap statute. This is independent of whether the judges themselves or the judiciary employees want to avoid monitoring for idealistic and legalistic reasons or simply as an end-run around being caught downloading MP3s, AVIs, inappropriate content for the workplace, or simply stealing the bandwidth provided to them as a matter of course for their use in their employment. Don't forget that the judges are employed by us (the taxpayers) via the government to administer and adjudicate the laws that are created by the legislative and executive branches that we choose to elect.
I didn't elect them to use workplace time and equipment for personal use. Now I agree with Kozinski that if this policy was not well-articulated, then it is wrong for monitoring to be allowed to occur. But I also feel that it is not appropriate to suck bandwidth or waste time on the company dime. Especially when that company dime came from my pocket via taxes.
I also feel that if the company or gov't office allows people to use telephones to make personal calls, they ought to allow some leeway in using internet bandwidth for personal use.
But since it would be inappropriate to use the office telephone system to call Mabel in Australia every day from the AOC office in the U.S.A., it would be just as inappropriate to waste huge amounts of bandwidth for MP3's (unless you are Judge Marilyn Patel, working on the Napster case), porn (unless you are working on a porn-related case), or even voice-over-IP phone calls (unless you are going to work on that case that ATT, MCI, et al, all WANT to file!).
Re:Missing the Point (Score:2)
Monitoring is pure PHB (Score:1)
I can stop them doing things which are unproductive.
Now we have open plan offices, e-mail and web monitoring. We cannot relax and get on with our jobs in peace and quiet - but at least we're not wasting time.
Dunno about you, but I find it quite hard to design and code in the middle of a fscking zoo.
Mind you, I'm getting away with this
This is odd... (Score:3, Insightful)
How does Monitoring Software == firewall software all of a sudden? Please don't tell me that their monitoring software is also a "personal firewall" package. If they're relying on firewalling at the workstation level then all of my faith in the judicial system is lost. "We didn't have the staff to support a redundant SOHO system so we ordered up a few copies of Norton's Personal Firewall". Oh, the humanity!
Sued if you do, sued if you don't (Score:2)
On the other side someone could sue on constitutional grounds of freedom of speech for things such as email monitoring and blocking. But now the New York state supreme court itself questioned the legality and it opened the door to hundreds of potential lawsuits. After all in the lawyers eyes a state supreme court itself questioned the legality. If I were a HR manager, I would be pretty pissed. On hand you can risk being sued if you don't monitor through sexual discrimination and on the other hand through abusive searches and preventing freedom of speech. So what is a workplace suppose to do?
I suppose the real question is with the privacy laws. I am in favor of corporation monitoring only under the condition that they do it under their own office with their own equipment during work hours. I believe we have no right to privacy other then the government cannot prosecute you with evidence taken without a search warrant. A private enterprise is not a government so it has a right to search its own computers. We never did have freedom of speech at work. Can a cuss in front of my boss or bosses boss or have any opinion or believe I want while on the job? I didn't think so and it's ok because a corporation is not a government. Think not about the costs of bandwidth and productivity but the costs of potential lawsuits.
our best defense (Score:1)
Re:our best defense (Score:2, Interesting)
I work for a consulting firm that does a great deal of work for the government. If I'm surfing porn or whatever during their time, then that's not a legitimate use.
Mass downloading on the other hand is something else entirely. As I type, I have slackware 8.0 downloading and I regularly listen to streaming radio feeds while I'm doing my work. Those are the uses that I think are the most important. IMHO, It's no different from having the radio on or listening to a cd.
Re:our best defense (Score:3, Insightful)
I work for a consulting firm that does a great deal of work for the government. If I'm surfing porn or whatever during their time, then that's not a legitimate use.
Mass downloading on the other hand is something else entirely. As I type, I have slackware 8.0 downloading and I regularly listen to streaming radio feeds while I'm doing my work. Those are the uses that I think are the most important. IMHO, It's no different from having the radio on or listening to a cd.
Except you are using some of their finite amount of resources to do this. Listening to the radio takes no resources (except for the tiny amount of electricity, which they give you permission to use by saying you can listen to the radio). Downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio uses a piece of their bandwidth.
I work at a company that only has a partial T-1 (768 kb/s). If we had people downloading Slackware and listening to streaming audio, it could potentially impact our bandwidth for legitimate work related activity. Should we be able to monitor and make sure people aren't using our (limited) resources for things they shouldn't and thereby negatively affecting the productivity of others? Of course we should, so how is this any different? If you are continually on the phoen making personal calls, you can be disiplined (they can't monitor the content of your calls, but they can monitor how much you use the phone). That is because it is a limited resources (there are only so many lines) and if you are using then for non-business related activities, you could impact people trying to use then for business.
judges may need to check things out (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:our best defense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:our best defense (Score:2)
Not to single you out (ok, so I am), but you and several others appear to be missing the point. Yes, I believe that such uses of employer's computers are just wrong. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is instead the methods by which they were being monitored. If I walked up to my boss and made some side comment about how I was using my computer to watch videos during the day, then he'd have the right to fire me. On the other hand, if my employer uses stealthy monitoring tools to "spy" on me while I work, this is an invasion of my privacy, and in my mind no different that tapping my phone without a warrant. Just wait till somebody monitors you and cans you for some pornography popover that came up while you were reading an article on *news source X* about a new deal between your company and another.
See how we feel (Score:3, Interesting)
Judge not lest ye be judged... or something like that.
Re:See how we feel (Score:1)
So you're say that judges get horny during the day just like the rest of us?
Maskirovka
Re:See how we feel (Score:1)
Sensationalism (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't try to make this out to be more than it really is. This is just a bunch of co-workers using their own smarts to get around the IT department.
Re:Sensationalism (Score:1)
The bottom line is that this might be a good thing for the average Joe.
Re:Sensationalism (Score:2)
If anything it was perhaps overly ambiguous or too vague, but correct nontheless IMO.
Re:Sensationalism (Score:3, Insightful)
Everywhere I've worked, I've BEEN in the IT department, and we are the first ones to by-pass any blocks/filters for ourselves. After all, we're responsible for maintaining them...
This also as DMCA implications. The DMCA would seem to create an open season on placing bugs in software that monitors browsing, collects information, etc, and "phones home", yet disabling this or even breaking into the code to find out WHAT it's doing would be a DMCA violation.
I guarantee soon monitoring software will be appearing in closed-source programs, like games, etc before long, when the Doubleclicks of the world start spreading the $$$ around. And it'd be nice to have judges who are aware of the implications.
Re:Sensationalism (Please RTFA!!) (Score:5, Insightful)
If you'd bothered to read the fascinating article, you'd have seen that the NYT explicitly says: "There is no evidence that any alleged abuse involves judges." Just so you know.
And in fact, the issues they are worried about are :
- Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, [argues] that the monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute.
- "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private sphere."
- "In fact, the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court."
That's what they are worried about. And as for using their tech smarts: they just ordered their sysadmin to disable monitoring software. Try reading the article, mmmkay?Re:Sensationalism (Score:2)
Finally! (Score:1)
That was the point, wasn't it?
Dancin Santa
Could be good news for Dmitry (Score:2, Interesting)
IANAL
Close (Score:2)
Difference Between Monitoring Web and Other Stuff? (Score:1)
Or monitoring the content of our telephone calls for "non-work" communication?
Or monitoring the bathrooms for "non-work" activity?
If there were microphones in the lunchroom -- or, even worse -- in the bathroom -- employees would be furious.
But what's the fundamental difference -- since we're talking "content" here -- between "non-work" jibber-jabber (which surely wastes huge amounts of time) in the hall and "non-work" jibber-jabber surfing from, say, MarthStewart.Com or Kmart.com or Walmart.com?
Our company's counsel said, well, you have a good point. But he couldn't explain the difference.
Why is form of communication more "privileged" than the other? And why do employees sit by and allow their computer clicks to be monitored yet would raise holy hell if they found their "non-work" bathroom conversations were being taped, logged, and then catalogged for a manager's later perusal.
I suspect all this monitoring stuff boils down to two things: (1) liability and (2) bad managers. The liability I can understand -- sexual harrassment due to pornoography, etc. etc. Okay, I understand that.
But (2) is more complex. This isn't a newsflash to anyone on Slashdot, of course, but why is it that more and more managers are farming out their "managerial duties" to the IT department? "Hey, I can't monitor my employees all the time, but I can damn sure monitor what web pages he/she views. Ergo, I retain control."
We needed these guys for the Microsoft trial... (Score:5, Funny)
Understanding that the browser was NOT an intrinsic part of the operating system, for example would have taken all of 60 seconds.
Curious George
Re:We needed these guys for the Microsoft trial... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:We needed these guys for the Microsoft trial... (Score:1)
Re:We needed these guys for the Microsoft trial... (Score:1)
they did not disable it themselves
and i doubt you needed tachnical savvy to read the memo "employees please note that from next monday all internet access will be monitored"
We sure did, integrating a browser is not a crime! (Score:1)
just paraphrasing what you wrote, but any non-biased judges would see that browsers mean SQUAT when it comes to operating systems, so their inclusion or not is irrelevant.
Ms was guilty of monopolistic ideals only through their marktet and forced licensing deals with OEMS. What they integrated into the OS should be of ZERO concern.
Why? Because it comes down to, who decides what is and is not allowed to be integrated?
What if MS started to include compilers for C++ and such in their OS? How about source code so that making windows apps using their compilers was many times easier?
So, yes, technically capable judges are nice.
The point is Microsoft CLAIMED it was impossible (Score:2)
Curious George
It's it great when things happen to judges? (Score:2)
It's obvious a lot of this monitoring goes over the line.
Too bad "judge" Kaplan didn't have a kid who downloaded Metallica and was one of the 300,000 kicked off, etc, or liked to buy out of region DVD's.
The more pissed off judges get the better.
Re:It's it great when things happen to judges? (Score:1)
Being pissed off just makes it easier for the loser to get the ruling overturned on appeal.
No-login Link (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No-login Link (Score:1)
Monitoring is here to stay. (Score:2)
Workplace monitoring is here to stay and has been upheld too often for it to be easily overturned. Any case brought to challenge would have to be in the legislature and the infamous "What do you have to hide" mentality will hold most representatives at bay.
Sad but true...
Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt
Re:Monitoring is here to stay - so I'm leaving (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you hear the story about the two judges arrested for drunk driving on the same night? They get to talking, and figure out that they could be the judge at each other's trial, and get off a lot easier.
So, on the day of the trial, the first judge takes the bench, the second says he is representing himself, etc., etc.. To speed things up, the defendant pleads guilty, the judge asks, are you sorry for what you did, etc., etc., the defendant shows "due remorse", and the judge decides to let him off with time served.
The two then switch places, even swapping the same black robe there in the court room, each wearing their golfing outfits underneath, and switch places.
The current defendant pleads guilty, and shows "due remorse". The judge looks over the desk, and says, "if memory serves, this is the second DUI in a row that has come before the court. In the past, the court has been lenient on this particular offense, but it looks like we have to send a message to the community. $5000 fine and time served!"
I agree, this probably won't turn into a real court case. All this talk about illegal wiretaps and other nonsense sounds scarier than a nice, simple privacy amendment to the constitution. I wouldn't like my IT department getting a court order to "wiretap" my connection because they think I may be "stealing" excessive bandwidth from the company. Is it a worse crime if you are "stealing" from a government institution?
The solution is clear - either a privacy ammendment, which clearly states the right to privacy and lets future legislation and court cases decide the boundaries (not likely in the near future), or just go to a better company, one that's not as draconian. And you wonder why there is a shortage of tech workers for government jobs?
There are two ways of monitoring. (Score:2, Insightful)
Bad: On the other hand, monitoring personal information would target everyone, and would force any worker in the department to become paranoid. This would lead the way to do personal manhunts, and would be a very bad thing.
Re:There are two ways of monitoring. (Score:2)
It's worth trying, and certainly less invasive than monitoring traffic from individual machines.
Not gain! (Score:2, Insightful)
a) making sure that nothing "outside the law" is taking place
b) making sure that its not being over done by utilizing company and work bandwidth.
HOWEVER, what I don't see being studied and reported on is, if letting employee surf at work is adding value to their productivity and therefore to the company. For example, it is a fact that listening to music (via radio, et. al.) is a way to improve ones productivity. Doesn't surfing improve productivity as a way of taking break, et. al.?
Can we for once get some study done on this "monitoring" stuff from a positive angle please?
Re:Not gain! (Score:1)
What's sad... (Score:5, Insightful)
Although I'm not a big fan of workplace monitoring, this instance smacks of that guy [slashdot.org] whose neighbor told him about the how p2p likes to find kids, give them pr0n and take their bikes.
In a perfect world, the folks in D.C. would listen to the concerns of those of us who are bugged by privacy intrusions when they first start. I guess I'm not really one to complain, since I've never written a letter to my congressdude.
Maybe we should start writing. That way we'll be justified in complaining when congressmen/judges only care about things affecting them directly, or when they hear it from their neighbor's kid's cat.
Will this change anything? (Score:1)
Re:Will this change anything? (Score:1, Informative)
hmmm (Score:1)
txt done dirt cheap (Score:1, Informative)
Rebels in Black Robes Recoil at Surveillance of Computers
By NEIL A. LEWIS
ASHINGTON, Aug. 7 -- A group of federal employees who believed that the monitoring of their office computers was a major violation of their privacy recently staged an insurrection, disabling the software used to check on them and suggesting that the monitoring was illegal and unethical.
This was not just a random bunch of bureaucrats but a group of federal judges who are still engaged in a dispute with the office in Washington that administers the judicial branch and that had installed the software to detect downloading of music, streaming video and pornography.
It is a conflict that reflects the anxiety of workers at all levels at a time when technology allows any employer to examine each keystroke made on an office computer. In this case, the concern over the loss of privacy comes from the very individuals, federal judges, who will shape the rules of the new information era.
The insurrection took root this spring in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco and the largest of the nation's 12 regional circuits, covering 9 Western states and two territories. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the ultimate governing body of the courts, is to meet on Sept. 11 to resolve the matter.
The conflict between the circuit judges and the Administrative Office of the Courts, a small bureaucracy in Washington, deteriorated to a point that a council of the circuit's appeals and district judges ordered their technology staff to disconnect the monitoring program on May 24 for a week until a temporary compromise was reached. Because the Ninth Circuit's was also linked to the Eighth and Tenth Circuits, the shutdown affected about a third of the country and about 10,000 court employees, including more than 700 active and semiretired judges.
Leonidas Ralph Mecham, who runs the Administrative Office of the Courts, and who ordered the monitoring of all federal court workers, said in a March 5 memorandum that the software was to enhance security and reduce computer use that was not related to judicial work and that was clogging the system. A survey by his office, he wrote, "has revealed that as much as 3 to 7 percent of the judiciary browser's traffic consists of streaming media such as radio and video broadcasts, which are unlikely to relate to official business."
Officials in the judicial branch on both sides of the issue provided several internal memorandums written as the dispute continued over the weeks.
After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at risk," he wrote on June 15.
Mr. Mecham warned in that memorandum that on the days before the software was disabled, there were hundreds of attempts at intrusion into the judiciary's network from places like China and Iran.
But Chief Judge Mary Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit responded that the concerns were overblown and that the circuit's technical people carefully monitored computer activity during the week that the software was disabled.
In a June 29 memorandum, she said that there was no evidence that the electronic firewall used to block hacking had been breached and suggested that Mr. Mecham had exaggerated the potential of a security breach because having hundreds of attempted breaches per day was routine and routinely blocked.
The Ninth Circuit disconnected the software, she wrote, because the monitoring policy was not driven by concern over overloading the system but Mr. Mecham's concern over "content detection." Many employees had been disciplined, she noted, because the software turned up evidence of such things as viewing pornography, although they had not been given any clear notice of the court's computer use policy.
Moreover, she wrote, the judiciary may have violated the law.
"We are concerned about the propriety and even the legality of monitoring Internet usage," she wrote. Her memorandum said that the judiciary could be liable to lawsuits and damages because the software might have violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, which imposes civil and criminal liability on any person who intentionally intercepts "any wire, oral or electronic communication."
She noted that the Ninth Circuit had ruled just this year that the law was violated when an employer accessed an employee Web site. In fact, the issues of what is permissible by employers have produced a patchwork of legal rulings and the matter has never been addressed directly by the Supreme Court.
Judge Alex Kozinski, a member of the Ninth Circuit appeals court, drafted and distributed an 18-page legal memorandum arguing that the monitoring was a violation of anti- wiretap statute.
Judge Kozinski, widely known for his libertarian views, said the court employees who were disciplined, an estimated three dozen, could be entitled to monetary damages if they brought a lawsuit.
A spokesman for Mr. Mecham said that the software could not identify specific employees but workstations. When unauthorized use was detected, Mr. Mecham's deputy, Clarence Lee Jr., wrote to the chief judge of the district, urging that the employee who used the workstation be identified and disciplined. One such letter includes an appendix listing the Web sites that employee had visited, some of them pornographic. There is no evidence that any alleged abuse of the system involved judges.
Judge Kozinski said: "Aside from my view that this may be a felony, it is something that we as federal judges have jurisdiction to consider. We have to pass on this very kind of conduct in the private sphere."
Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of the George Washington University Law School, author of a recent book on privacy, "The Unwanted Gaze" (Vintage 2001), said, "It's fascinating that the courts have to grapple with these issues so close to home." The law is evolving, he said, adding: "This drama with the judges reminds us of how thin the privacy protections are. There's a real choice right now whether e-mail and Web browsing should be regarded like the telephone or a postcard."
Judge Edwin L. Nelson, who is chairman of a judges' committee that deals with computer issues, said in an interview that his group met last week and drafted proposals to deal with monitoring. Judge Nelson would not discuss the proposals but they are almost certain to resemble policies used in the rest of the federal government, in which clear notice is given to computer users that they may be monitored.
Jim Flyzik, vice chairman of an interagency group that considers computer privacy issues in the federal government, said that each department had its own policy but that clear and unambiguous notification of monitoring was usually an element.
In the private sector, a survey by the American Management Association this year found that 63 percent of companies monitored employees' computer use.
Re:txt done dirt cheap (Score:1, Funny)
Piss off a few judges... (Score:2)
This story shows that the best way to get legal action going is to piss off someone who can make it happen. Rip off a lawyer, invade the privacy of a judge.... They don't care about my ability to access porn at work, but take away theirs and it's the biggest courtroom issue since OJ and the bloody glove.
Maybe there's a judge somewhere who misses Napster and can bring legal action against the RIAA for shutting that service down. That might be why the DOJ is investigating the music industry: the lawyers want their free music back.
fun and games (Score:4, Funny)
It is all fun and games till a judge loses his p0rn.
Oh leave the employers alone... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't want anyone telling me what I can do with my computer, so if I want to monitor my computer I will. Same with the employers: if they want to
monitor their computers they should be able to.
I consider it a huge inconsistancy in nerd viewpoints that they want freedom for themselves (let me put whatever OS I want on my computer!) but not for some other groups (don't you DARE monitor what goes on on your computer while your employee is using it!).
If you don't want to be monitored, don't work there. It's that simple.
And then there's the solution that the employees can always insist that the executives of the company are monitored too and everyones' records are made available to both employees and stockholders. After all, I'm sure the stockholders will go for any proposal that would increase productivity from the executives too.
The key is to leave the decision to monitor or not to the company itself, and not the government.
so? (Score:1)
Re:so? (Score:1)
What Bravery! (Score:2)
A bunch of judges decide take a stand against some bureaucrats who wanted to monitor their computer usage. Like I said: Oo-o-oh! What bravery. If you and I were to do that in our workplaces, we'd soon find that we'd be providing our professional services elsewhere. I'm not sure about New York but a lot of the judges here in Illinois are elected and it's pretty hard to get rid of them. Pretty easy to take such a stand when there are, essentially, no consequences. I wouldn't count on seeing these guys written about if Profiles in Courage II ever comes out.
Try siding with employees the next time a case involving workplace monitoring is brought to trial in your courtrooms. Then maybe this'll mean something.
Who are they trying to kid - FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
'After the shutdown, Mr. Mecham complained in a memorandum that disconnecting the software was irresponsible and might have resulted in security breaches, allowing unauthorized outsiders access to the judiciary's internal confidential computer network. "The weeklong shutdown put the entire judiciary's data communication network at risk," he wrote on June 15.'
This it total FUD! How can a monitoring program on a judges workstation have ANY effect on the integrity of the firewall. I don't know of any firewall that requires client programs on end users workstations to be active in order to maintain protection.
Re:Who are they trying to kid - FUD (Score:2)
Re:Who are they trying to kid - FUD (Score:2)
Well... He's only parroting what what they told him in MCSE class!
Questions (Score:2)
I've got a couple of questions about the article though. Firstly, it says:
Anyone got any idea how many such attempts a network like this typically gets? I'm guessing it'd be a similar number regardless of the filters, but there's plenty of people here who've got more experience than me.Secondly, how do these monitors work? I ask, because I'm amazed that disabling content monitors would constitute a security risk of the sort they're talking about. Surely they just log what each user is downloading, rather than actively blocking content or attempts to connect to the network. They're not even filters, just logs!
Re:Questions (Score:2)
Re:Questions (Score:1)
Re:Questions (Score:2, Informative)
As for numbers of attempts. Literally thousands in a week.
What is not clearly stated is that the AO installed IDS equipment both outside and inside the 9th Circuit gateway. The equipment disabled was the inside equipment. So there was never any security risk.
1984 is dead long live 1984 (Score:2, Insightful)
I've found over the years that there is often a correlation between an employee's time spent inappropriately browsing the WWW and job performance. My personal policy has always been to trust employees and reward good job performance.
In the rare case that an employee breaks the laws of the land we've been able to retroactively piece together the evidence needed by the police from logs and backup tapes. May not be as proactive as real time monitoring but it seems to be just as effective.
As for security threats. There are lots of ways to prevent viruses and system compromises that don't involve monitoring what client users are browsing on the internet.
I think if management came to me and asked that we monitor computer usage by employees I'd suggest that we find new supervisors who are more in touch with the day to day activities of their charges.
Which reminds me, do you monitor your children's internet activities? I personally just put the computer in a public place in the house (like the kitchen) and make a point of walking by it every once and a while.
Re:It's not your computer. (Score:2)
Whether or not society allow corporations to take away privacy is entirely up to society.
The right to incorporate is no inherent natural right - it is a privilege granted by the people via their governments. It originated as royal orders to create a "virtual person" with rights defined in a charter. Even today most corporations are governed by a charter, but the charter granted is usually much wider.
In most states in the US laws have been or is on the book to allow the legislatures in the respective states to dictate the contents of the charter on a case by case basis, to limit the time the charter is granted for (a charter used to be time limited), and even to dissolve the corporation if it is decided that it does not serve the public.
Revoking charters used to be common if a corporation was seen as abusing the powers granted to it by the people, and restricting privacy for its employers could quite well have been considered as abusing its powers.
A corporation in the US can still in many states be argued to have no "rights" other than what is granted to it by the legislature. Some may say its unfortunate that its now uncommon for the legislatures to write, rewrite or revoke charters on case by case basis...
(Information about charter revocations in the US can be found here [co-intelligence.org])
Typical reply without the facts. (Score:1)
I'm a tech guy manager. (Score:1)
Must be great to be indispensable. (Score:1)
Re:Must be great to be indispensable. (Score:1)
I'm not a primadonna by any means. My sleeves are always rolled up, and I do everything from enhancing old COBOL reports, to training interns, to writing the API for our distributed system. I put out a lot of fires, and I take on a lot of jobs that the primadonnas don't want to be bothered with. And besides that, my users know that they can TALK to me. I try hard to keep an open, honest relationship with them.
Despite all this, I don't think that the company owes me a damned thing (except maybe a raise and a promotion
If I spend half an hour a day, reading the news, or the next chapter of the JAVA API tutorial, it's because I need a frigging break... not because I'm being unproductive. I work hard. Managers like you probably don't realize this, you think that we're ALL slackers. You're so wrapped up in increasing productivity that you blindly put the squeeze on the guys that keep your shop running.
Maybe I should spend some more time reading Dead Tree manuals... You can't track that. Or maybe I should start spending time in stall # 3 with my copy of Information Week... when does their next salary survey come out?
The problem with the firewall reports/usage monitoring, in my shop anyway, is that the guys that make the decisions about how much online time is too much, or who gets laid off next are so far removed from the day to day work, that they have no idea what's really going on. They just see numbers... function points.. how far above or below budget were X department's projects last quarter. IMO, their ties are tied a bit too tight and they forget that they have real people working for them. Not bodies, but people.
Sure, you'll find another programmer when someone like me leaves. Maybe he/she will work out. Maybe they wont. But I'm sure that the leadership just radiates from your body, and you'll inspire your team to help the new guy along while he figures out how to fit in.
Sure.
And then the next guy will quit, and you'll have to replace him... more valuable project time wasted while HE tries to figure out what's going on. Then YOU can explain to the boys upstairs why the projects are late.
Oh, one more thing. I was rewarded for working from home. The key word is 'WAS'. Now it's expected from me. It no longer comes up in my reviews, and I'm no longer thanked when I do it. So how should it feel for me to take time out of my personal life, to solve a problem (which is usually caused by someone else), to have the work pretty much ignored? It pisses me off to no end.
My reward for my continued hard work is a talk about how all employess need to be more productive and productivity is being measured, in part, by internet & phone usage. Give me a fucking break... why do I even need to hear this kind of stuff?
pressure/grep
Re:NY Times without the login... (Score:2)
So even if you post a story with a login-free link included, the editors will clean it up to cover their backs. Frankly, I can't blame them; since almost everyone knows how to dodge the info-collector it's not worth risking a fairly well justified law-suit.
Re:NY Times without the login... (Score:1)
Re:Need an article mirror... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No spam from NYTimes (Score:1)
-Nano.
Re:AOC? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Hmm. (Score:2)
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/
Then the US Supreme Court, which may or may not hear it.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/