On acceptable use
Recent logs on Maui suggest that some users have been sharing their passwords, and apparently abusing their internet access privileges: browsing questionable sites, hogging much needed bandwidth, even flagrantly violating other's right to privacy and that of data integrity.
The original purpose of internet access -- and of the local area network in general -- in the workplace was to promote openness; and while it was made clear that connection to the network and its services was a privilege, that privilege was left open to cultivate a network culture. That philosophy, however, has been turned on its head by some who thought that they can abuse it with impunity.
Hence, several restrictions have been put in place, including stricter and more clear-cut network policies that specifically curtail some privileges. It was hard on the part of the network management to impose such policies, but to ensure the security and integrity of the network, it had to be done.
This meant one thing: that the network management can and will carry out its mandate to police the network, no matter what it takes. It might seem authoritarian, but the recent rash of abuse called for it. It would have been better if the policies were transparently implemented, with the minimum of fuss, but some persons chose to flout them, so measures had to be taken.
Sad, really, because the privileges could have fostered better collaboration and communication among peers -- the true spirit of science as embodied in the workplace's corporate philosophy -- had they not been bulldozed and sidetracked by pettiness, ignorance and arrogance.
(Just my two cents.)
The original purpose of internet access -- and of the local area network in general -- in the workplace was to promote openness; and while it was made clear that connection to the network and its services was a privilege, that privilege was left open to cultivate a network culture. That philosophy, however, has been turned on its head by some who thought that they can abuse it with impunity.
Hence, several restrictions have been put in place, including stricter and more clear-cut network policies that specifically curtail some privileges. It was hard on the part of the network management to impose such policies, but to ensure the security and integrity of the network, it had to be done.
This meant one thing: that the network management can and will carry out its mandate to police the network, no matter what it takes. It might seem authoritarian, but the recent rash of abuse called for it. It would have been better if the policies were transparently implemented, with the minimum of fuss, but some persons chose to flout them, so measures had to be taken.
Sad, really, because the privileges could have fostered better collaboration and communication among peers -- the true spirit of science as embodied in the workplace's corporate philosophy -- had they not been bulldozed and sidetracked by pettiness, ignorance and arrogance.
(Just my two cents.)
Comments
Post a Comment