AW: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage??

["Kunz, Peter" <Peter.Kunz () sisclear com>]

> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von:  Desai, Ashish [SMTP:Ashish.Desai () fmr com]
> Gesendet am:  Montag, 21. Juni 1999 15:48
> An:   firewall-wizards () nfr net
> Betreff:      RE: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? 
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:       Marcus J. Ranum [SMTP:mjr () nfr net]
> > Sent:       Sunday, June 20, 1999 10:59 PM
> > To: Di Phelan; firewall-wizards () nfr net
> > Subject:    Re: Content blocking - Singapore seems to manage?? 
>       ..snip.. 
>
> > One of the problems with content blocking is handling violations.
> > I suspect the easiest way to handle them is never to see them in
> > the first place. ;) As I said in my previous message, a lot of
> > companies have _existing_ policies that would cover online
> > "objectionable material" -- they ask for technologies to block
> > it at the firewall yet, at the _same_ time, they have firewall
> > logs that show without reasonable doubt who the offenders are
> > already. Why not just deal with them directly? Oh, no, that would
> > cause too much conflict...   In fairness it's because it puts
> > the network manager in a position of having to do H.R.'s job,
> > which is kind of ridiculous. But then the whole idea of preventing
> > communication over a communication channel is kind of ridiculous.
>       ..snip.. 
        [Kunz, Peter]  What are the legal implications of this in the US or
elsewhere? In EUrope, you'd probably have a hard time as HR going to the
Admin to look at logs protected by data protection laws.

>       Content blocking + proxy logs is needed to cover a company legal
> liability.
>       We had instances where we blocked porn sites (using some blocking
> service company)
>       and we still had employees trying repeatedly to  go visit those
> sites. Turns out look at
>       the proxy log we found they were visiting other sites that were not
> block and were spending 
>       quite a lot of time there (whole day!). Investigating further we
> find they had some really nasty
>       stuff on the local machines. Needless to say some of them got fired
        [Kunz, Peter]  Another interesting point: Hopw do you get authority
to scan local machines? Disclaimer upon employment taht everythign is
company owned?

> and one was handled over to
>       the US District Attorney (child porn). 
>       The moral of the story is the company needs to have 
>       blocking in place, saying that they did their part to have ?reduce?
> a hostile work
>       environment and then occasionally visit the proxy logs and do
> something about it. 
        [Kunz, Peter]  At least ONE company reacting.

        cu
        -pete
>