LOCK IT DOWN! and let the "kids" go try to earn a living elsewhere.
Frivolous surfing costs far more than lost productivity. It adds to IT costs from removal of spyware, unauthorized applications, games, yadayadayada..

I don't understand why companies would want to not lock it down. So what if their employees are complaining. I would venture the ones complaining aren't the ones who are the most productive. What could possibly be the advantages if having access to the internet except to waste time? Most companies have an intranet for company specific internet needs.
I say let the complainers walk because apparently they don't wish to go to work to work.
I even hear some people don't have internet at home because they have it at work. So the company they work for is paying for their internet use as well as paying for them as a worker. It doesn't make sense.
Keep it locked down.

There is way too much anal micro-management in today's workplace. Leave the Internet accessable and fire the workers who abuse the privilege and who are not performing at or above the company's proficiency standards. Employees perform at much higher levels when they are given ownership in their part of the organization.

Being the BOFH responsible for the whole infrastructure of my employer, let me say this:

When the corporate network was established a couple of years ago, the owner decided to leave internet access open, and only set written policies on internet use. Productivity did not suffer from it. However, the maintenance costs went through the roof because of trashed machines.

Thus the computers themselves were locked down tighter - which DID impact productivity and did nothing to make them any less reliable. Even a fully locked down Windows box is in all truth anything BUT locked down for a local user who has to have the ability to load stuff from removable media - including executing programs.

Finally I overrode the bosses decision and locked down the network tighter as a drum. EVERY action on the network gets logged: file accesses, programs run, documents opened and so on and so on. In addition, internet access got limited to the point where employees went through a filtering proxy and have the ability to request opening a blocked page. Productivity is back up, and last years tech support costs were the lowest in company history.

I would never, ever, give employees open access to the internet again. The only people who have unrestricted access here are managers, the main office staff and the IT department and a few selected people who subjectively (i.e. in my opinion) seemed to be responsible users - but even for that group, every single thing they do on a computer gets monitored. Paranoid? Yes, because the majority of humans are generally irresponsible, careless and generally need a gun pointed to their heads to make sure they work as they should.

The only thing that's now down is my popularity, and I could not care less about that.

Just recently the boss instated a new rule: Try to circumvent the imposed restrictions and go look for a new job - no exceptions, you get fired the same day.

If it's locked down where I work, nothing would get done.

Everything we do is done via the net now. I run a visitor information center & tour booking service.

Ninety-nine percent of our bookings are done online these days. If the internet is down, we have to use a manual ticketing system ~which is a right royal pain-in-the-butt.

We also use the internet for searching information on tours/products we may not carry or have displayed. So, it's necessary to be on the net for my/our jobs.

However, I do have complete access to the work computers from home [when I'm on days off etc.] so I can see what my staff are up to at any given time. It's not something I really need to check very often ...as I know that the staff are just too busy with customers to be surfing the net. Our office/shop is in a prime location, and is heavily trafficked ..all day.

I do agree with the majority here ...If the net is not a major tool in the workplace, then it should be locked down. Screw the buggers who won't work if there's no net ..they weren't going to do much anyway, and would'nt last long working for me

I think it depends on the job, I have nothing against locking it down but I would like it to be open. If you have a job you should be responsible enough to not use the internet for anything stupid. Locking it down prevents people from using great things such as Google's writely or Google Speadsheets.

I think a lot of it has to do with the reasons for allowing/denying internet access. I can't say I have a lot of sympathy for someone who will freak out and turn down what might be an otherwise good job just because they can't browse the web. But on the other hand, there are quite a few job duties that are benefitted by (if not require) general internet access.

One can make the argument that a company intranet should have all information needed by an employee, but that's very difficult to achieve, especially for most information workers. General research is a *required* ability for any good information worker, and the internet can be an invaluable source of information, and unnecessarily restricting that access is counterproductive.

Most of the 'analysis' that states that this kind of thing is detrimental to productivity tends to be shortsighted or outright wrong. If the people who work for me (or with me) are doing their jobs, and meeting their deadlines, deliverables, etc., I don't really care if they spend a little time browsing the web, or doing personal business, or whatever. People should be measured by how well they meet their job duties, not by how 'busy' they appear to be.

IMHO, the only close to reasonable argument is the spyware/malware/unsupported applications problem with unrestricted internet access. That's not an unsolvable problem, even when allowing access. The company I work for allows us to have general internet access (and has no general problem even with personal use, within reason), but we don't have any significant problem with the negative effects (spyware, etc.), because the individual boxes are pretty well locked down, there are reasonable filters on some types of sites, and the employees are held fully accountable if they do something stupid. People are judged on their *performance*, not on 'looking busy'. As a result, the employees are better able to do their jobs, they feel like they aren't being micromanaged by some moron who can't figure out how to measure actual productivity, and the generally loose attitude about the work environment reduces work stress and actually improves the overall working conditions. We don't have the spyware/malware, etc. problems because we actually manage the environment, we don't just put some policy in place and hope it will solve all of our perceived 'problems'.

It's a simple truism: if you cannot properly manage your people when they have things like relatively open internet access (or any other 'perk'), you cannot properly manage them if they do not have these things, either. You get an order of magnitude more work out of an employee who is content and feels like they have some freedom than you get out of an employee who is constantly looking over their shoulder waiting for the axe to drop over even the slightest 'transgression'.

I have two very good reasons for the total lock down position. I will make this short and sweet. I have two sisters In two completely different jobs in completely different States thousands of miles away from each other who on purpose do not have internet service at home because they have total access at work and email accounts and all. They both even have access at work on weekends because of overtime. I am not talking about kids. My sisters are much older then I. To give you a clue they are "baby boomers" looking to retire in five years or so. So the problem surpasses age. It can be a problem for any company anywhere without reguards to age. So I say LOCK IT DOWN!!!

If the companies that they work for don't have a problem with thier behaviour, then there's certainly no reason for you to have a problem with it. And if their companies do have a problem, then your sisters should be disciplined or fired. There's certainly no reason for your sensibilities to have any involvement in the matter at all.

There is nothing inherent about internet access that creates someone who will abuse their job or slack off needlessly. If that internet access didn't exist, those kind of people would find something else to waste their time on.

If you want to manage a bunch of children, work at a day care. If you want to manage adults, judge them on their performance, not on what you think they might be doing behind your back.

Our network is so "locked down" we are unable to access updates we NEED to download for software or hardware WE support. With all the proxy server problems, multiple routers, and issues with the way they have the system borked, its so slow we were getting downloads of around 20k on a T-1 line. Its so bad we gave up. We installed a separate DSL line that has NO connection to our business lan. And about 80% of us use this DSL line. I have to tell you that we are a regional office with 30 employees, and our main office is about 4 states away.

We get these LAME emails telling us that the web is for WORK purposes only, and then it goes on to bitch that the #1 web site visited is GOOGLE.com? Well DUHHHHHH, people USE google to search for things, and believe it or not they might even use it to search for WORK RELATED things. They went on to say that they were looking at way to block google, and other search engines, what the hell? Ok, give us DIAL-UP Speed, then block the things we need to use, yeah.. that's a GREAT plan. And its no wonder why people find alternative ways to do things.

Locking things down is one thing, making it USELESS is another. If you make it so there is no way to even do basic things like download sw/hw updates, search the Internet, or get emails then you are just making it a useless network.

If you don't trust your employees that much, FIRE THEM. It's simple, trust people to do the job you hired them to do and if management see someone abusing this, then deal with that 1 person, don't hamstring the entire company for the actions of 1 or 2. Its this kind of mentality that makes people look for ways around the rules.

We are given laptops that have so much CRAP on them we cant even change the network IP address. Oh yeah, as I'm a Field Engineer, and one of my main jobs is to go on-site and work on the networks of our customers (who, damn them, don't all have the same ip addressing, can you believe that?) and when we complained to out IT people we were told "there is no need to be able to change your IP address to access our network". HELLO? did you even hear what we said? its not accessing the lame outlook or office printer its accessing our customers lans, and doing the job we are hired to do. So when a laptop comes in, we take the drive out, sit it on a shelf, and put in a new drive and load it so we have the s/w we need and are able to do the work we need to do. WHY? why should this be the case? If IT cant listen to the employees of the company (and doesn't IT work FOR the company, not the other way around?) then what is the point.

I know all about IT, i working as the IT administrator for a 300 person company for 7 years, and numerous other companies before that, so i know what I'm talking about. When IT becomes I WONT then its time for IT to go BYE BYE.

Just my 2 cents.

I am not sure, but at least in Switzerland keyloggers, secret cameras and other "spying tools" are not allowed unless the employee is informed of their existence beforehand.

Our company uses keylogging and usage tracing, and all users are informed via a "splash" dialog outlining the conditions of use of the companies computer system previous to being able to logon to the system. By clicking "OK", you agree to the terms or your session is ended immediately - before you can logon to the system.

This is a common practice by network administrators here in Seattle. It removes the ambiguity of the requirements and expectations of use, thus avoiding the "I had no idea I was not supposed to do that", or at least provides for a legal avenue of firing the individual for improper conduct on the job.

To #15 I do not in any way judge my sisters for using the internet freely at work.You misunderstand my comment. I do not care to police any one who uses the internet at work. I really don't care one way or another. I was just giving a different perspective to the conversation. Because it seemed that the only people who were mentioned were younger people. My "lock it down" comment at the end is my personal opinion in general which I have a right to as an individual.

Ms skybright,

While it was not my intention to target your position in particular (I simply quoted it as a specific example of an opposing viewpoint), it's still pretty obvious that you harbor some sort of resentment about what others get to do at their jobs. Otherwise, why would you even bother to develop a negative opinion about it? And while it's true that everyone has a right to their opinion, said opinion doesn't really count for much unless you can back it up with some kind of evidence. And to quote your post again, if your sisters' employers don't have a problem with the way they use the net, then you don't really have any kind of leg to stand on when complaining about it, even if you *feel* it's somehow 'wrong'.

And all opinions or personal desires aside, it comes down to a simple statement of fact: the employer gets to choose what kind of internet access is allowed or acceptable, and the employee gets to choose whether or not they're willing to work for an employer. No force is involved on either side of the equation.

Just as an example, I work for a large, geographically diverse company with revenues in the billions. We're allowed IM clients (we actually have a corporate version installed as part of our base image), we're allowed relatively unfettered internet access (subject to the obvious restrictions, porn and the like), and our employees are measured based upon the work that they're required to do, not based upon the whims of a micromanaging control freak who loses sleep at the thought of an employee 'wasting' time to go to the bathroom.

My company has not self destructed as a result of this behaviour. We have not suffered some postulated lack of productivity. Our IT and PC services departments are not swamped by spyware/malware/unauthorized software installations, etc. We treat our employees as adults, and hold them comcomitantly responsible for their actions, and we don't have the problems that apparently plague the day care centers that are masquerading as other companies seem to have.

There are jobs that don't require any internet access at all (things like call centers, etc.), and there are jobs where internet access is a clear cut productivity enhancer and knowledge tool. And there are legitmate steps that can be taken to handle the vast majority of issues. A 'one size fits all, LOCK IT DOWN' policy not only doesn't fit all cases, it is fundamentally stupid. An IT department that cannot make that distinction is doomed to fail, sooner or later, because they are constitutionally unable to adapt.