

Ask HN:  are big compnay IT restrictions really necessary? - ohhmaagawd

I worked for a moderately larget software company (200m revenues) and we were doing just fine.  We got bought by a big company (revs 1B) and they clamped down on us.  They shut off IM, banned skype, banned chatrooms, banned software as a service usage (like BaseCamp), banned itunes, etc.  This all was done for our "protection."<p>They claim that for legal reasons they can't allow any of the above.  Legally they need to be able to monitor everything we do and have documentation of it.<p>I talked to a CEO of a company that has been thinking about going public and he confirmed to me that his lawyers advised him to shut down IM, ban iTunes etc.<p>So my question is:  is this BS?  My understanding is there are many publicly traded companies that allow IM, iTunes, whatever you want (Google, Microsoft?)  Why is it that it's ok for some and not others?  Does it depend on how paranoid their lawyers are?
======
run4yourlives
Is it BS? Yes. Is it necessary? Yes - but not to you.

Big companies are run with other people's money. These people don't trust you
and/or your boss(es) any further than they can throw you. I don't blame them
frankly. There have been far too many examples of why they are correct not to.

So these other people figure that the best way to safeguard their money is to
make sure that you and your co-workers are legit. The only way they can do
that though is by hiring yet more people to ensure that you actually tell them
the truth about what is happening to their money. It's these third parties,
the "auditors", that run most large companies.

Auditors have found that there is a certain set way of running companies that
tends to result in the least amount of risk to the money that funds the
operation. The money that belongs to someone else. Auditors ensure that the
company is run according to these principles.

Ergo: the fact that some rimjob 3 states over once used iTunes to and IM to
run a kiddie porn distribution ring or whatever and caused heartache for the
money suppliers of that company means that the Auditors concluded that IM and
itunes pose a risk to the other people that supply the money for your company:
hence, you aren't allowed to use itunes as a matter of policy.

It gets even better when the government gets their hands sticky as well.
Because then you get crap like Sarbanes/Oxley that basically makes being a
criminal more difficult by making everything more difficult.

Public companies are not about the product/customer relationship. They are
about the investment/investor relationship. You are the investment. Your job
is to provide a moderate to excellent growth rate for as little risk as
possible.

This is why public/large companies have little incentive to innovate in the
same way start ups can, as an aside.

------
pedalpete
A company I once worked for brought in a new IT manager who implemented all
sorts of absolutely crazy rules like this. Including setting the screensaver
and wallpaper for every computer and blocking users from changing it.

Not long after he arrived it was discovered that a few of the guys in IT were
using company servers and network to run a porn site.

Some of the stuff you mention is moderately defensible. Like iTunes (you're
supposed to be working). But Skype and IM like e-mail are great productivity
tools if used properly. And Skype can save a company bunch of money too.

I'd say there is a great market opportunity for somebody to figure out how to
answer the problems you are describing. Giving IT the confidence and info that
they want, while enabling the tools you are being blocked from using.

~~~
devicenull
Whats wrong with music when working? I'd say many people who work in "normal"
jobs have a lot of time where they aren't actively talking to someone. If
listening to music makes their day happier/better, why stop it?

------
woodsier
In large companies they are necessary to maintain some form of control, just
so you don't have your IT department running around fixing computers all day,
but not to this extent. What you're dealing with are technically-challenged
control freaks.

------
makecheck
This is a world where you can E-mail sensitive documents anywhere, log in over
SSH without a trace, visit cached web sites instead of using "blacklisted"
domains, use virtual host names, and set up VPNs. An I.T. person is delusional
if he or she honestly believes that it is possible to fully "control" computer
use.

The solution for securing sensitive material is not to do stupid things like
posting it on any web site ("protected" or not), and to absolutely trust under
penalty those who receive (paper) copies of it. And so forth.

------
etravers
Those of us who know how to conduct ourselves see this as unfair, but like
verything else in life you have to consider the lowest common denominatior.
The data leaks happen in the places that really shouldn't have the problem

(President, Safehouse, Limewire)
[http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9136053/Details...](http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/print/9136053/Details_on_presidential_motorcades_safe_house_for_First_Family_leak_via_P2P?taxonomyName=Security&taxonomyId=17)

