On Wed, Mar 06, 2002, H M Rajeev wrote:
> Here havoc means it is unethical. Say among 100 users we have
> given access to only 50 users.
Yes, this may be interpreted as "unethical" by the other 50 users,
giving them necessary moral justification to invent ways to bypass
your restrictions.
> And other 10 users are accessing the net by connecting to
> unauthorized proxy. Certainly other 40 users , who don't know how
> to bypass will question us.
How about giving access to everybody? Again, try to address the core
problem rather than side-effects.
If the core problem is that 50% of your users are likely to abuse
their Web access, make your definition of abuse clear and announce
that all accesses are logged and abusers will be fired. You may still
get a couple of smart employees that can encrypt their browsing
sessions, but you can probably ignore those exceptions.
If you core problem is bandwidth-related, then introduce per-employee
bandwidth limits.
BTW, IIRC, the next to last issue of ACM Communications magazine had a
series of articles on Web access abuse at work.
Alex.
Received on Wed Mar 06 2002 - 08:15:39 MST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 17:06:45 MST