Stealth Software Used To Spy On Employees 248
Baraka writes "As if reading the e-mails of their employees wasn't enough, some corporations have gone as far as to install hidden software on their client boxes. The software secretly monitors all keyboard and app activity. At the end of the day, the gathered information is e-mailed to the "offending" employee's boss. Read it and weep, folks. Looks like Big Brother is alive and well in the officeplace. "
This is why you reformat and run Linux (Score:1)
Always been like this. (Score:2)
This is just a finer resolution of detail. Instead of measuring completed documents, they're measuring sub-units of the document.
It's annoying, but it's no different than previous measures of performance.
Paranoid Workers (Score:1)
If I get a job at a place that has "spying" software, I'll feel like I am being violated in some way. Not that I'd pull a lawsuit at my employers, but I'd bring my opinion to their attention.
-PovRayMan
Well... (Score:1)
however, what exactly is so bad that the employer would think they HAD to take measures like this? I mean surely it would have to be something worse than the occasional porn break wouldn't it?
another thought... what are the possibilities of this being installed on someone's system and used to steal source code or other valuable information for a competitor? this just has all sorts of bad uses...
Interesting article (Score:4)
Actually, in retrospect, this might be a ploy by the company to generate interest in its product. The more controversy surrounding this product, the more people who are informed about it -- kinda like Apple complaining about export policies in order to brag about how fast the G4 is.
Personally, I think monitoring is not a good idea. If an employee can double his/her productivity by taking short breaks to chat with friends online, then by all means that employee should do so. It should be painfully simple to discover when someone is making trouble online. At that point, convensional methods should suffice unless special surveilance is required. In general though, spying on employees betrays trust.
Should we really be suprised? (Score:1)
vote with your money (Score:1)
Why do employees put up with it? (Score:4)
It seems American companies are willing to just about anything to spy and generally make life suck for there employees, but at the same time I keep hearing about how companies are scrambling to find people for there technical jobs.
If having to worry about finding another job is not a problem, why would anybody stay at a company when it starts spying on you, forbidding you to send private email etc etc? Is this just a matter of greed, because I know that as far as I am concerned some level of freedom at a job is worth a number of K $s.
Maybe I'm just not disillusioned enough yet...
-
Re:Paranoid Workers (Score:1)
That stuff doesn't work (Score:1)
Illegal in some states? (Score:1)
employees without them knowing? This software
seems akin to video taping. I know if found out
that the company I worked for did this I would
quit.
Integrity is worth more to me than a paycheck.
YMMV.
Re:This is why you reformat and run Linux (Score:2)
Corporate LAN staff decided do an OS survey with port scans. Both of my machines reported the port scans to me. The LAN admins got an inquiry from me to confirm it was a legitimate scan, and as I realized what probably happened I offered to manually give them their survey info. They seemed slightly amused that they'd been noticed. They also didn't complain about the machines having security settings too good for their search...
Microsystems Software developped such a product. (Score:1)
This product was done by the same people who now publishes Cyber Patrol. I believe that some of the code from the sentry product is in the Cyber Patrol product.
Injured software engineer wins against Mattel! [sorehands.com]
BO2k Anyone? (Score:3)
This is why I use my own box at work. Well, ok, it's not really why, but it's one nice side-effect. Generally companies large enough to do this sort of thing have standardized on NT, and have nothing but point-and-drool admins who have no idea what to do with a Linux box. My workstation: I built it, I own it, I administer it, and it runs Linux. I trust my new employers [intes.net] though, so I don't think it'll be an issue. :-) They ran SMS at my last job-- funny story: When I first got there, they installed NT on my machine (of course it was going to get wiped and Linux-ed as soon as they left the room). I had to sit there and watch for 1/2 hour while they installed the system, set it up, created a user for me, blah blah blah. Finally at the end they set up SMS, and told me "I'm sure you know how to disable this, but please don't, because we need it to... yadda yadda yadda." I just nodded and smiled. Weirdly enough, although I was not allowed to disable SMS if I used NT, removing NT entirely was fine with everyone.
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:2)
But is a work environment of fear any better? (Score:5)
Donald Dick anyone? (Score:1)
http://donalddick.da.ru/
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Well we are. We focus on the High Schools and to a lesser extent on the Middle Schools.
Easy to get around (Score:3)
The best way in Win 9x to see what's running would be msconfig in the run box. If some are really brave they can take a look at the Registry and find the Run under the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run and any of the other ones in that general area that have Run in them.
Now as far as it being illegal for the company to do this. That depends on how you look at it. The network and machines are the company's property therefore they can dictate what can and can't be done on said network or computer. That's why I just bring in my own laptop and plug into the network they don't mind that since it's my own stuff I can break it all I want. As long as work is getting accomplished though I don't feel a company should monitor it's employees that heavily.
This kinda reminds me of a telemarketing job I had for AT&T. They could always tap into your line and hear both sides of the conversation that you were trying to sell. You always knew that you had to not lie to customers on the phone and be nice and agreeable. But if you knew that Call Quality was on the line you would be sure to do stuff extra correctly. So if you know that boss is watching you probably wouldn't do anything you're not supposed to.
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:2)
Re:Fuck you! I'll deal with it by quitting, asshol (Score:1)
really thought. for that 8 hours your shoulder is his shoulder... he's the one renting it and the (Fuck You... -666 head blah blah) head attached. if this monitoring reduces productivity he will take it away... its an evolution of sorts..
john
Re:Well... (Score:1)
however, what exactly is so bad that the employer would think they HAD to take measures like this? I mean surely it would have to be something worse than the occasional porn break wouldn't it?
It can be. One thing that is forgotten is that not every user is an idiot. We've got some people where I work who go out, download stuff, crack it, etc. I could possibly lose my job because of that. These computers are the *companies* property, not the users. As per the rights of their job, the user is allowed to use, within the restrictions set forth by the company, these computers. They don't have the right to break the law, install software(freeware, shareware or anything inbetween), or delete software.
Also lost productivity. Those computers aren't there for you to have fun on, they're there for you to work on (granted, some jobs can be a mixture of both
Much as I(we?) hate to admit it, work is for work. Admittedly, on a "lunch break" I wouldn't care if a user was playing a game of solitaire, or doom. But when they're using resources on my network under normal work conditions, and wasting that(the companies, and ultimately, my) time, that's when it needs to stop.
Trust (Score:2)
These types of managers are distrustful pointy-haired pinheads, looking for evidence to support their paranoia (paranoia brought on no doubt by the fear that their gross incompetance will be discovered).
By the time a company gets infiltrated by these types they're not worth working for anyhow.
Huh? (Score:2)
There's paranoia and there's stupidity. The line is fine, but geez, you can still see it.
If you don't like the corporate policies, don't work for them. Either that, or get enough people to agree with you and form a union. In this country, workplace rights issues are usually hammered out by unions.
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Just a side note... the SysAdmin's dont check where I go because I use the tech DNS server... hehehe.... shhhhhh... dont tell!!!
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:3)
Also, many of these type of programs use a couple of tricks even then, for instance, they give themselves inoccent sounding names, and/or use shell hooks, which means the application's DLL is injected into other processes, no new processes created. A knowledgeable win32 developer can play a cat and mouse game to disable these applications, but the real issue should be with the employer, and why they feel the need for this. My employeer just runs a proxy to monitor what URL's I visit, and I think much more than that would be grounds to find a new job.
Re:Paranoid Workers (Score:2)
I'd quit.
Agreed!!
I've about had it up to here with these reports (not the reports themselves, but the content) that corp's seem to have it in their heads that since they paid for the equipment, they own it, and that by extension, since they pay for the employees, they own them as well.
A coworker of mine recently sent a clipping out of the employee handbook from where I work that basically says that corp security has every right to arbirarily search not only my computers (one of which I've paid for myself - let the lawyers figure that one out), but file cabinets, boxes, drawers, and - get this - backpacks, briefcases, etc.
I've been filing this kind of stuff under "Corporate Human-rights abuses". It reminds me of the same kind of nonsense one would expect from a facist government, not a modern corporation.
Norton's BB Anywhere (Score:2)
BO2K?
;)
They don't (Score:1)
Besides, I'm sure they sell this software to all countries. Perhaps even to your employer...
wait, it's getting even better.. (Score:1)
His argument is that he can't administer my system in case of mallfunction or when I'm not in the office.. He's just pissed... And he still hasn't got my root-passwd...
That will teach him to install Lotus Notes on my system...
Re:Paranoid Workers (Score:2)
It just seems to me that the loss of privacy jilts the employees. It just makes them feel like little children being watched over, and looked down upon. I know that there are cases where monitoring maybe necessary, but I think that it should be a restricted power, one that is agreed upon on a case by case basis by the management, and is only used when there is just cause to warrant it.
Just to note, the head of the IT department, was desperately trying to forge a plan to switch the whole company over to Linux. This company was very OSS/free software friendly.
Re:This is why you reformat and run Linux (Score:1)
Think of it, your suspected to be talking about nazi racism, your machine gets a software implant. You aren't root, shouldn't be otherwise you really do have right to do what you want, so you can't tell unless you do a netstat every moment.
Nope. (Score:2)
Nope. I ssh/telnet into my home box, download the porn with lynx and view it with hexedit.
Look a nipple: "A1 14 23 42 B1 07"
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
The analogy I think of is speeding tickets. If cops really wanted to slow traffic down, they could stop their cars in a conspicuous location that everyone would see. Instead, they conceal themselves and catch people in speed traps, because their real objective is to raise money.
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:4)
Ignoring that, there could be nevertheless hidden difficulties behind trying to stop something like this. And not all the difficulties are necessarily technological.
If the employer is running software like this one everyone's workstation as a matter of policy, then by disabling it, you are violating company policy. If you get caught trying to disable the software, you could be disciplined or fired. It would be trivial to design monitoring softwarethat cannot be simply turned off without detection. For example, the software could periodically respond to special pings from a central server. Hacking up software to fake the responses could be a major challenge depending on how the program is constructed. If there is some serious crypto authentication, it would have to be reverse engineered and faithfully reproduced in the impostor program. Most people would have to wait for some hacker group to release such an ``anti-big-brother'' impostor.
Another problem is, it would seem suspicious if nothing is being recorded by the monitoring program. You would have to arrange for your impostor program to provide some sensible looking activity record while you conduct personal business. Otherwise you would have to explain the idle periods---and what if the monitoring is being used to detect idle workers as well as ones who are using the equipment for personal use?
A third problem is that even though you stop keyboard monitoring, your employer can still snoop the network. Presumably, any interactions you have with the Internet go through the company's routers. The boss doesn't necessarily need a tedious record of your keystrokes; just some software that can monitor TCP streams and other data. By tapping TCP streams, it should be possible to recover telnet sessions, FTP transfers, ICQ or IRC chats, Usenet reads and posts, etc. This is kind of spying is probably a lot more useful than having some keystroke record. (Of course, one could use an encrypting proxy system, but that alone could draw suspicion.)
I don't think that there is any real technological protection against this. Any such measures treat the symptom rather than the disease anyway! You have to treat the disease. If you happen to fall into such a predicament, organize with other users who are in the same boat, and let the corporation know that you won't take the spying. In other words, the classic organized labor solution to the problem of worker oppression.
Failing that, terrorist tactics might work. The spying has to be implemented by another employee. Simply threaten to, in the parking lot, break the legs of anyone who supports the company's oppressive measures. Distribute an anonymous flyer which threatens to blow up the premises if the spying isn't put to an end by a certain date. Phone in bomb threats. Etc.
Re:Paranoid Workers (Score:1)
rob
Re:This is why you run Linux...and GET FIRED... (Score:1)
Re:wait, it's getting even better.. (Score:1)
I don't know why, but.. (Score:1)
All this talk about employees goofing off at work got me to thinking.. Most of my friends who work for software companies spend a lot of their time in chat rooms, on MUDs, or something of the sort (they'd suddenly be having very loooong days at work if their companies were this draconian), and so I began to wonder..
What does Linus Torvalds do at work? I mean, I can see his employer coming up and asking him what he's doing and Linus saying, "Oh, I'm just in a chat room. I'll get back to work in about an hour or so." Then his boss, "How long have you been chatting so far?" Linus again, "All day, really." Finally, his boss: "Oh, ok. Talk to you later then, Linus." I mean, what would his boss do.. fire him?
Not that I think Linus would do that, really, but it's kind of amusing to think of the relationship between someone as respected for his achievements as Linus Torvalds and his employer if he did. :)
Re:Interesting article (Score:1)
Is this such a big deal? (Score:3)
A company hires you to work for them. They have bought (or rather, rented) a product (your labor and skills) which they expect to pay the company back more than they spend on you. As such, they have a certain right (not to say obligation) to ensure that they're getting their money's worth. As I see it, this is perfectly OK, at least within certain bounds.
First, they should make their monitoring policies clear. Monitoring performance is one thing, but secret monitoring is something else. Employees should know what they may be subject to, so that, if they don't like it, they have the option of finding another job without those restrictions. Second, they should monitor only the amount, not the content, of personal communications. As the ACLU rep in the article said, listening in on a phone call to a spouse is illegal, and a similar principle should apply to computers. However, the company should be able to keep an eye on whether the employee is e-mailing their spouse once a day, or every 5 minutes. Thirdly, any information gathered about an employee should be purged when they leave the company, unless said information is to be used in a legal action against the employee. Once the person is no longer employed by them, their right to know anything about her ends.
There is a separate issue, which several posters have pointed out. Regrdless of whether such monitoring is immoral (and I don't think it is, within the above limits), it's just plain bad for business. Nobody wants to work in an environment where they are being monitored 9-5 every day, and the psychological effects of being in an environment like that could be enormous, not to mention the effects of being prevented from taking a break every so often. It is accepted wisdom (does anyone know of any statistics on this?) that people are more productive when they are in a work environment where they feel comfortable, and monitoring their e-mail and calling them in for a meeting with the manager every time they play solitaire is pretty much the opposite of that.
Moreover, using this system to routinely monitor employees is a waste of resources. Looking for embezzlers and such is worthwhile, but not routine, wide-scale moitoring. There are much better ways of measuring an employee than how she uses her computer. The monitoring system measures input- how much time is being spent on work. But an intelligent company will realize that they don't care about inputs. They care about outputs, which are usually easy to measure by more conventional means (how much work the employee is actually getting done). The genius programmer who takes minesweeper breaks every hour, but pours out code at a spectacular rate, is worth more to a company (at least, to a smart company) than a dull, uninspired one who produces less, but faithfully spends all his time in the office doing work (at least, as far as his computer can tell).
Re:Paranoid Workers (Score:1)
I have never viewed pr0n in the workplace, yet having my every keypress and mouseclick catalogued, indexed and searchable would be dehumanizing and demoralizing.
The employeer is better off just hiring people they can trust not to do stupid things.
monitoring confuser? (Score:2)
Likely this wouldn't work for company monitoring (they'd call you up and tell you to cut it out) but as a defense against unwanted/illegal monitoring software, how feasable would this be?
----
We all take pink lemonade for granted.
Re:This is why you run Linux...and GET FIRED... (Score:3)
Look, if the company owns the network, and the hardware, etc.... that's fine, they get to say what happens on them. Do work at work, yes I agree.
BUT! These are the same companies that DEMAND 60+ hour work weeks! If they're so anal as to demand complete control over everything their employees do, then they can pay for every stinking hour that the employee is there. Don't pay more than 40 hours? Then watch your employees walk out the door at 5 each and every single day. Got a deadline? TOO DAMN BAD. We all have to go home and live our lives -- since we sure aren't allowed to do anything personal at the office... right?
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Re:"Neat" Software (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Fear (Score:1)
Or mabe I'm just paranoid. But I doubt it.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
(yes, this was sarcasm)
Re:Why do employees put up with it? (Score:1)
Re:Easy to get around (Score:1)
Hey, Bud, It's not your computer, anyhow... (Score:1)
doing a job, using the employeers hardware,
in the employeers building, doing what your
manager asked you to do. Why on *earth* should
you expect any privacy in that situation.
Look, if you have to make a private phone call
take a f***ing break, go to a pay phone, and
do it. Otherwise stick to work. If you want
to find out what's happening in the world, buy
a newspaper and read it at lunchtime! Don't
waste your employeers time, bandwidth, and
electricity by sucking down www.cnnfn.com every
10 minutes.
I'm so sick of people deciding that they OWN
the computers that employers purchase and put
on their desks. You wouldn't run your own
errands with the company delivery van, you would't
use the company paint shop to repaint your car,
why is the computer on your desk any different?
Look, remember that anyone who has physical
access to a machine can be running a sniffer,
and the root/admin can read all, and stick by
my rule of thumb: Never put anything on a
computer you wouldn't want printed out and stuck
on the bulletin board in the cafeteria.
Rant complete.
-- ac on this one
Where one man can go... (Score:3)
Monitoring in the good old days (Score:1)
Keep in mind that this was on a pretty old OS (MVS, with block text screens) and that nobody there knew it existed. One feature - it allowed you to assign the userids of people who could monitor you, and we tried it out. Really creepy feeling, watching the other guy's screen as he typed stuff.
What spooked me was that it had been there for months, and nobody knew of it, or if they were being monitored. My mgr wasn't the type to do it, but who knows if there was some Stalin type surfing across hundreds of people's screens?
Re:Ok, I'll flame you! (Score:1)
By the way, what is PHB?
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
I think you don't get out much.
Haven't you seen the big corporate world government? Much bigger and stronger than
any civic government out there?
Want an example? Visit any airport.
See how much free speach or freedom from
search and seizure you have. Much less than
under the supposed government of whereever you
might be.
Re:wait, it's getting even better.. (Score:1)
what's the big deal here? (Score:1)
Q: What are "standard" clients capable of? (Score:1)
Obviously, by default, the Novell client tries to run a login script which is typically used to assign default drive mappings and the like. The login script can be enhanced to upgrade software, start default processes and anything else that can be done with a standard MS-DOS batch file.
If I disable the login script, is there anything else the sysadmin is capable of running on my PC?
FYI: Microsoft's NT client won't allow you to disable login script processing.
Re:Ok, I'll flame you! (Score:1)
What others regard as "slacking", I view merely as "efficiency". In business, the goal is to provide as little to the customer as possible, while still getting from the customer as much as possible. This maximizes profits, as long as you give just enough to the customer so that they continue to do business with you.
This is the same exact thing that slackers do TO their employers. They provide just enough work to keep from getting fired, while getting as much pay from them as possible. Thus maximizing their profits.
Companies don't want employees to think like this, though... they only want the company to act like that. But we're ALL indepedent contractors, whatever label our employers wants to stick on us.
Everyone should give their employer as little as possible, and suck them dry as much as you possibly can. After all, that's what they're trying to do to us. Turnabout is fair play, and a lot of fun, too.
Is this so different? (Score:1)
Yup. Using the company's hardware (and time) for these private conversations is no worse than using their phones to make a personal call. And should be treated the same way. If the company allows employees to occasionally use the phones for personal business, they should allow similar use of computer terminals. Abuse of the telephone or the network to the extent that it interferes with an employees work can be dealt with without surveilling (is that a word) the communication.
Porn sites and the like is not something you should be doing at work. Nor is chatting.
Well no, but I don't think spying on employees is justified even in these cases. If their use of porn or chat affects their work, or that of other employees, it gets noticed. No surveillance needed. If it doesn't get noticed, then can it really be said to interfere with work? And if it doesn't interfere with work, why should the company care that it's happening?
In short, I think it's okay for employers to have and enforce rules regulating employees' use of company communication equipment. I do not think it's okay to eavesdrop on those communications. The same rules should apply whether the communication is spoken over a telephone or typed into a terminal. The same rules should apply whether it consists of pornography, stock quotes, or a friendly call home to mom.
Re:Easy to get around (Score:1)
Hmmm. Why not design easy to fool packages (Score:1)
Moderation is the key (Score:2)
I am a network administrator for a small-ish company. While I agree that breaks are needed to keep moral at a good level, and that breaks from stress increase productivity.
The question is this: how can I decide, as an Admin, the defining line between an employee wasting company time and taking a much deserved break? It's impossible to set a standard for all employees company-wide. Different people handle stress differently, different job expectations cause different amounts of stress. Yes, I can draw the line and say "You are not permitted to look at pornographic material which at work." But I don't feel it's within my rights to tell an employee that they aren't allowed to use, for example, ICQ while at work.
Employees must simply take it upon themselves to see that software like this isn't necessary. Don't abuse the freedom that an employer grants. I'm not saying you can't play a game of solitaire. I'm saying that you shouldn't play solitaire for 2 hours a day. Moderation. When an employer receives the perception that there is an abuse occuring, that's when software like this seems like a viable solution. Don't give them that opportunity. And if your employer decides to implement this software without provocation, then quit. If you aren't abusing the freedom you are granted, take your talent and abilities elsewhere. Chances are, that employer doesn't deserve you anyway.
A question for those who support monitoring (Score:1)
"It's the company's property. What's wrong if they monitor every keystroke and email? You should be working anyway!"
I have a question - what makes you support Big Brother? Ideologically, emotionally.
What I find very surprising is the mentality of these people. Obviously, they are not powerful managers who would actually be doing the monitoring (or they wouldn't be reading
I have great difficulty understanding this mind set. So please enlighten me...if you're one of those people.
Note - Don't reply saying it's legal, blah blah blah. So is FBI tracking of cell phone location, and I'm sure there are people who support it.
My question is not the actual merit of the view, but the psychology of people who SUPPORT pointy haired bosses while being cubicle drones themselves. Why?
On the other hand... (Score:2)
Therefore, as long as the software is being used in a *controlled* manner, and only for very limited periods of time, on people who are suspected of wrongdoing, I could agree with it's usage. I'd rather be proven innocent by being monitored, then automatically assumed guilty!
Not An Invasion Of Privacy (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
This is not in fact the most effective method: you (the police) are then limited by the number of cars they have, which is usually less than the number of streets they need to watch. By hiding, they spread the uncertainty out: every road carries nonzero risk of getting caught, which effectively reduces the total amount of speeding.
The analogy is a very good one, though: the threat of this software being installed on your computer is probably a more effective deterrant to your misuse than any actual monitoring.
Re:Well... (Score:1)
The second job I'm currently at is an ISP. Grand total of 7 employees, no blockers, feel free to do email at work... I feel motivated to work hard 'cuz he's given me the right to break loose when I need it... I wish more companies could try that model, though I do realise in a bigger corporate environment it is more easily abused...
-philskyD
The Re-invention of the Dumb Terminal (Score:1)
This environment makes it difficult to know what is going on, as it would all run on the server.
Hmmmm . . . hack the server maybe, but there ain't much on the client to play with.
-- Reverend Vryl
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:1)
Exactly right - don't work for corporations. (Score:2)
Corporations, especially the large ones, have indeed made pyschological screening, insurance redlining, credit checks, drug-testing, and lack of privacy the industry standards they are today. The scariest part is that they have great influence over lawmakers and unless we fight it, choice may vanish completely no matter who you work for.
The phone company owns the networks I communicate over, and it even used to own the handset in everyone's home. People *still* have an expectation of privacy in phone conversations, and have been legally upheld in this expectation. Its not the ownership per se, but the explicit signed agreement on terms of use that should dictate whether an employer can snoop or not. If I see such a clause in my contract I'll ask it to be struck, or keep looking, just as I do with drug testing clauses. Their power extends exactly as far as what we will put up with. Too much in my view.
Where thou do worketh? (Score:1)
Re:wait, it's getting even better.. (Score:1)
Re:Q: What are "standard" clients capable of? (Score:1)
Employers rights (Score:1)
If you don't like what they are doing, go work somewhere else, that is what America was founded on, Liberty. You can work anywhere you want, you don't have to work there.
That's my 1/50 of $1.00 US
JM
Re:Illegal in some states? (Score:1)
There was a chain of doughnut shops that got into trouble for the audio taping of employees. But the unblinking eye is ok with the goverment.
shudder (Score:1)
"I always try to look on the bright sidem it's just that experience has taught me to expect the worst."
-- Garak
ST:DS9
Re:Why do employees put up with it? (Score:1)
Matt
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
Controllers vs doers (Score:1)
And then there's the controllers. They have no goals other than controlling. Nothing they want done, other than being in charge. And since they know they are non-productive, they have to make their bosses, who somewhere up the line are doers, think they are doers themselves, or at least have some use as paper pushing managers, because doers don't want to hassle with management any more than necessary.
So these controllers need to generate activity and reports. What better way than this kind of snooping software? Never mind that a good manager would judge by end results. That kind of judgement requires long term observation and reasoned judgement. Controllers are ultimately cowardly, paranoid, and have termendous inferioty complexes. They know they are ultimately uselsss, so they have to work like heck to hide that with ridiculous reports. They can afford no criticism from below and have to direct all criticism from above to those below. They must shift blame elsewhere, and hope to get away with it as long as possible, before the doers above them get wise and realize the cost benefit ratio of a particular paper pushing controller is less than unity.
--
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Privacy Policy at my Work (Score:1)
That way, the employees don't feel like Big Brother(tm) is watching their every move, but we also have the capability to monitor specific employees when necessary.
I understand that one or two people have been fired for viewing pornography at work. I don't see the problem with that. First of all, you should be doing work at work. That's what you're being paid for. But, more importantly, female employees can feel very uncomfortable when their male co-workers are viewing pornography at the office, and rightfully so. Many people consider it to be a form of sexual harrassment. Frankly, I don't see how it's harrassment, but I do see how it's extremely inappropriate.
Re:Not An Invasion Of Privacy (Score:1)
Also, I don't especially agree that occasionally checking stock prices or news sites is such a grave offense against your employer. I'd put it on the same level as having conversations with coworkers about non-work related topics, which companies aren't trying to forbid (as far as I know).
Re:Paranoid Workers (Score:1)
They do not "own" the employess, but they have every right to tell them what they can and cannot do on the companies computer systems. They own the time they pay you for, and furthermore if you weren't doing things that were against company policy you would probably not scream so loud about this issue. I have not made use of this kind of tool yet, but if own the computer it is my right to see what it is used for.
I've been filing this kind of stuff under "Corporate Human-rights abuses". It reminds me of the same kind of nonsense one would expect from a facist government, not a modern corporation.
"Human Rights" you make me laugh, you don't have a "right" to work at a specific company and if you are doing something that could lose them money then they have a right to find out. Companies are not the gov't. All of this bleeding heart crap irritates me, you would take away the rights of the companies owners to satisfy yourself.
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:1)
When I was in school the university decided over winter break to install cameras all over the computer rooms. A huge bank of monitors was setup in the data center to watch these cameras and everything was taped. A year later I was talking to an assistant who worked for the computing center. He said that they had tried to rewind the tapes to identify people who had caused damage to equiptment four times. They were only successful at locating and identifying one of those four, and that was when the manager of the system had staged the removal of a mouse as a "test". So basically they spent thousands and thousands of dollars on a system that did nothing. There's just too much data for one person to absorb it. Now they've turned the cameras off, but left the boxes there. People don't steal stuff because they're afraid too, and there's no ridiculous maintenance fees on the camera system.
Legal right vs. moral/ethical right (Score:2)
However, too many people forget that legality is not the same thing as morality. I dare say, that as a fellow Libertarian, you, more than others, should recognize that. It is because of the failure of most people to draw that distinction that we have the level of over-legislation that we see today.
So, while the employer is almost certainly within his/her legal rights (at least in the US; I don't know for sure about in other countries), to do so as a manner of course would be highly unethical.
As some others have said, however, if this is used only in the presence of preexisting suspicion, I don't see such an ethical problem. I suspect that the temptation to use it in other cases is too great, however, to be able to realistically limit it to only ethical use. Better to just avoid it all together, if you are an ethical employer.
--
Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
Re:That stuff doesn't work (Score:1)
2. The real technological protection against your employer spying on you is to use decent encryption - PGP for email, SSH or free-ssh or stelnet for telnet sessions, etc. Be sure to kick that keystroke monitoring crap off your machine first.
3. I'd really like to find someone that has it on their machine. What traces does it leave? Is there really a program called w3iuninstall.exe or similar? It should be simple to write a small program taht would warn a user if this kind of monitoring software is installed on their machine.
I don't have a big problem with employers monitoring what I do with their machine on their time - as long as they tell me! That's why I have a laptop with Linux on it and a wireless modem - that way, no one but me can read my email that I read at work.
stuff to think about... (Score:2)
Ultimately the shareholders own the equipment. So, why don't the shareholders monitor everybody, including the executives? Wouldn't an executive wasting time cost a lot more than a lowely employee? Is this is about making sure resources aren't wasted, or more about keeping people "in line"?
PGKeybindery (Score:1)
As a relevant aside, I have heard of some proprietary monitoring software implemented in Lotus Notes at a regional bank that actually did record how much time employees spent perusing emails and company memos (I suppose to see whether they were actually paying attention or in need of a possible attitude adjustment, a la Snow Crash).
This would all be more frightening if the would-be big brothers were less naive and if I were less confident in the talents of the open source community.
It's Always a Trade-off, Folks (Score:2)
The people saying that, while on corporate property, on corporate time, using corporate equipment, one must play by the corporate rules are basically correct. But the people saying that this is (or has the potential to be) a major violation of personal privacy also have their points.
So what's the deal?
The deal is, I think this is a tool which can be appropriate in a few limited situations with appropriate forethought and control. But I don't trust the teeming masses of management to apply it that way, and I expect it will be used as a sledge hammer.
What are some appropriate uses? Look to the original article, expand on their examples, and qualify the usage. Like it or not, a lot of companies have some very important data and information-- sales databases, customer databases, source codes, proprietary technologies, even something as simple as employee salaries-- that they don't want tranferred out of the company.
It gets worse when you start thinking about government or defense-related companies, where concerns change from corporate security to the national security information of a nation.
Additionally, companies can get into serious troubles if their equipment is used maliciously or illegally, even if they had no idea what was happening, and did not sanction it. Consider a corporate machine being used to distribute or download illegally cracked game software. Now consider a firm in the United States working on a government contract, where an idiot employee does this. The company is now in serious trouble if this comes to light.
Some of these things are going to be easy to detect, others, very difficult. And it is hard to tell a corporate security dude that he has no right to police his own equipment.
However, I can't see any real reason to start subjecting all employees to this form of scrutiny. This, I think, should be reserved for the situations when there is already an indication that "something is up," and then used to clinch the case.
Issue of productivity are, of course, either red-herrings or plain old misconceptions. There are time honored ways to waste time at work that have nothing to do with computers-- reading a newspaper, lounging, excessive coffee-breaks or chats with co-workers, and just plain old malingering will always be with us. Any supervisor who would need to rely on this sort of ham-fisted, intrusive foolishness should himself be fired for incompetence. A good supervisor relies on non-automated metrics of productivity, not automated metrics of diversionary activities.
What this would resolve down to is a reason to fire someone. Dilbert manages to embarass the Pointy-Haired Boss too many times? Well, PHB downloads Dilbert's electronic records, discovers that he e-mails his mother once a week, and terminates him for mis-use of equipment. If it weren't, it would be someone else.
So, it's a trade-off: Is it really worth annoying your workers by making the assumption that they are all crooks, criminals, spies, and professional malingerers, just to catch the 1.5 percent that are?
I doubt it.
Differences between workplaces? (Score:2)
Then I think about workplaced that don't and will most likely never have this, and again, I nod in believing the truth of it (again, news and word of mouth).
Maybe the difference between the workplaces where something like this will most likely be implemented, and were it won't, depends on the computer-savvy of the employees at the place. I think about places that are most likely never to implement this, and I think of game programming shops, web shops, unix shops, etc.. basically where unless you are the boss' son, you've got your job because of your computer savvy. At those places, from what I've been told, they are relaxed, might be on IRC, might be ICQing, may send out 50 emails a day.. yet still get out the product on time. Maybe because they know how to juggle their computer time wisely (I know that when I'm not busy with research stuff at home, I can chat in 2 or 3 irc windows and still get web or java programming done). Which suggests that any job that requires compilation might lead into this :-)
On the other hand, an office full of suit & tie bankers or accountants, that think the paper clip in Word is cool, might end up wasting hours on IRC or ICQ because they don't know computers and aren't efficient in doing something else while they wait for their friends to respond to mail (I've seen someone do this at my workplace. Type a message, sip coffee.. wait wait wait... message comes in...type a reply, and sip sip sip... an hour later, he gets back to work. Oy!)
AGain, a lot of whether your workplace is computer savvy or not.
However, I still stand by the point that if it's during the 8hr day that you're paid to be doing and on company property with company computer and a company-funded internet connection, the company has every right to watch what you are doing. They're stupid if they go Big Brother on the workplace, but they have that right to do that. And you have every right to find someplace that doesn't do that.
Re:Why do employees put up with it? (Score:2)
This contradicts what Gormick said above.
Which is true?
-
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Where's that degree? I don't know. It probably hasn't been defined, but people on Slashdot act as if it has been defined and is being violated. It needs to be defined first, and that's where trade organizations and unions come in.
It goes on at even the high-tech companies... (Score:2)
Then they started getting usage-based licenses, this required tracking also, the tracking program started running 100% of the time logging everything used on your system. It was a great tool to get rid of people, hmm, you're only using MSword 2 hours a day, you're not productive...
I guess it didnt check how much time was spent in rebooting. If you disabled it, the manager of IS came around and had a talk with your manager about you disabling corporate asset tracking software, bad news..
The only place that was safe was the lab, I took to hiding out in there with my un-monitored Sun and what the sysadmins called a 'Rogue' NT network. A friend who is still there has a Linux machine, they dont mess with him too much, but I'm sure the monitering software company is working on a Linux version.
They had the idea that if you work for them, they do own you, they had drug tests and phone logs and all that. I got fed up and left to do contract work, for them sometimes. Things there have gone downhill, control-wise. They do work that requires creativity under this evironment. They've phased in NT corp-wide not because it's better, but because they can control the desktops better. It keeps a level of fear that stops any sort of dissent, if you dont like things, dont complain becuse they have something on you, and could always trot it out and fire you. A complete list of URLs is kept for every user, if you are a good boy, no-one says anything, if you are on the 'list' be prepared to defend every URL you ever visit.
It's no surprise they are currently floundering internally despite having some new products out. This stuff started a few years ago, it takes time for a big corp to rot out it's insides until the outside world can see it, remember IBM?
It's the corporate culture of control that kills creativity and runs off your best people, when I see the top folks leaving, it's time to get out.
I'm talking about the people who are 'good' , everyone knows who they are, with the exception of PHBs and other weasel-types. They are the folks who really make things work. They dont have to put up with any crap. At the first sign the best jump, then as the BS rises, more leave and your dont ever see them replaced, sure, warm bodies may occupy thier old cubes, but things dont get done.
(been there, done that, got the hell out...)
Living well is the best revenge...
Good point about stocks (Score:2)
In the context of current law though, I don't have an answer to this. If an employee engages in illegal activity thru company equipment then seizure for evidence is a possibility. Also harrasment suits from employees offended by other's tastes. To prevent that the company must become their own police force to catch criminals and harrassers before the real police or courts can.
The question is whether the loss of employment and productivity due to the surveillance outweighs the risk to the company. For a small company this argument is more convincing, chances of criminal employees are not very significant, and harrassers are usually pretty well known as such fairly quickly. For a large corporation the equation isn't nearly so clear, they are almost gauranteed to see abuses. I still think zero tolerance for any discovered abuses plus insurance for liability might be a better route for them, especially given your arguments about liability due to additional people seeing critical information.
Re:stuff to think about... (Score:2)
Yea, Big Brother loves you, he feels your pain, you don't know how lonely it is at the top.
I'm sorry, but that is complete BS. You don't know how most people get their positions, and neither do I. But there is plenty of evidence that there are quite a few boneheads in positions of power. A little accountability from below, as well as from above, could keep costs down, keep workers happy, and keep the micromanaging morons out of the big chairs.
Besides, I seriously question the competence of anyone who feels it is necessary to deploy clandanstine monitoring software throughout an organization. It might be useful for collecting proof for grounds to fire someone, but to do it to everybody? It increases costs, destroys trust and morale (if discovered, which of course it would be), and even opens the company up to potential lawsuits.
And I do know most of my boss's responsibilities. And he'd probably agree with everything I've said so far. And I review his performance just as does mine.
Shareholders are the closest thing to real owners of a company's assets. They may not be able to buy and sell them, but they are where the buck stops.
A measure of an executives productivity is exactly the same as other employees, as far as measuring the productivity of any two employees is the same. Does he/she perform the job he/she was hired to do? How effeciently is the job done? Besides, you ever heard of a little thing called white collar crime? Embezzelment? Power without accountability can be a dangerious thing.
And why shouldn't they? (Score:2)
- It is simply too much work to monitor all employee's 'break' habints individually.
- Many employees (ab)use work resources for their entertainment or personal gain.
- All employees are paid for a certain number of hours of WORK in a day.
When I work, I am paid for my 8 hours, plus OT as needed. I expect to be paid for that amount of time, so why should the employer not expect to get that much work out of me?? It's only fair, equal work for equal pay and all that. In this, the employer is simply protecting itself from exploitation by workers. (the degree of 'break' is at issue though)
Monitoring individuals is a resource black hole. It can not be done effectively without devoting a significant staff and resources. An automated monitoring system serves to gather statistical data about employee work and break habits, so that these statistics can be used to reduce privilige to 'acceptable' levels. What counts here is a conscientious and sensible HR/IT regulator that defines what 'acceptable' is. And hey, if we feel that our surfing during work hours is reasonable - and we expect out employer to trust us, why should we not trust that regulator to NOT be a slave-driver? If the average stats show a reasonable non-work usage, fine.
If certain individuals skew the stats, they are singled out. Isn't that fair? Would we want to lose all access to
Monitoring helps the company protect itself legally from those few employees who abuse and expose the company by engaging in questionable or unprofessional behavior on company time.
Monitoring helps the company protect itself from widespread abuse, by allowing the tailoring of 'freedom' to within acceptable levels.
We have to remember that while we are being paid for our time, we are renting ourselves to the company. Our employment agreement states that we are there, working, for 8 hours per day. If we are not, then we should not be getting paid for that much time. If we are, then we are violating the terms of our rental agreement.
We are the ones exploiting the employer, not vice-versa.