RE: Screening Outgoing Mail for Content

["Chris Crozier" <chris () cirrus co za>]

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-firewall-wizards () nfr net
[mailto:owner-firewall-wizards () nfr net]On Behalf Of Perry E. Metzger

> In general, an employee will be productive or they won't. If they get
> their work done, keep 'em. If they don't, fire them. Its easy.

Wish it were that simple in our part of the world (South Africa). We have
some of the most enlightened labour legislation in the world, with the
consequence that it can takes months, and cost the equivalent of years of
salary, to fire someone just because they are not productive.

There is surely a middle ground between an intrusive and privacy-invasive
approach and the complete laissez-faire approach. In many countries outside
the US rules can be very one-sided against the employer so the arguments for
applying some general limitations on kinds of traffic can be stronger.

I don't know of any company that would try to stop an employee calling
his/her spouse, but I was an observer of a months-long struggle involving an
employee spending an average of 90 minutes a day on private phone calls.
Even with the evidence of telephone logs it took 6 months to fire the person
involved (who persisted in his/her ways after repeated warnings).

What's interesting to me is that the debate on the value of screening mail
turns out to be far more influenced by local social mores than I would have
supposed. In an ideal world, rights and responsibilities/accountability are
reasonably balanced, but when they are not then I speculate that the case
for screening gets stronger. I would much rather change society and
attitudes than implement screening, but I'm not sure I would be too
successful.

Chris Crozier
Cirrus Technologies (www.cirrus.co.za)
Tel.: +27 11 463 5557
Mobile: +27 83 377 7289
Fax: +27 11 463 5671

Chris Crozier
Cirrus Technologies (www.cirrus.co.za)
Tel.: +27 11 463 5557
Mobile: +27 83 377 7289
Fax: +27 11 463 5671