A ride on his personal mail, a discussion on MSN, a passage on Facebook, a YouTube video, a Flash game between two folders ... for many employees, it is relaxing as legitimate a cigarette or coffee break. At least they do not fall on an error message when they try to connect to these sites. If the proposed Internet filtering, such as the Loppsi 2, shall remove the shield associations liberties in cyberspace, which crippled the network access is already reality in many companies in France.
Although no national data is available - Websense, the leading filtering solutions, refuses to disclose its figures for France - almost all of very large companies and French administrations (national, territorial, hospital) are conducting filtering their local network. At the lowest level, 70% of companies with more than 500 employees have implemented such a solution, and 30% of firms with 250 employees, according Olfeo, a French company offering filtering solutions.
Let millions of employees involved in daily ... and not just to fight against the parties of Farmville in open spaces. "TIME LOST" AND PERSONAL SURFING Using non-professional sites remains one of the main reasons why companies set up a more or less selective filtering. A chord which are also companies marketing filter software, which do not hesitate to pound, supporting studies, the Facebook equivalent to break a deadweight loss to society: employees would spend about an hour and a half per day on the Internet, including one hour just for their personal surfing.
A drop of 14% productivity. Or, an annual cost to the company 2.5 times the monthly salary of the employee. Multiplied by the number of employees, the loss is in the millions. Some employees have already paid the price. In March 2009 the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal for serious misconduct by an employee who passed in December 2004, forty-one hours on the Internet for non-professional.
However, personal Web surfing is really falling productivity? A 2009 study from the University of Melbourne says otherwise. "A brief pause and non-invasive, as a quick surf on the Internet, allows the mind to rest, resulting in an increase in net total concentration on a working day, according to Dr.
Brent Cocker. Companies spend millions in software to prevent their employees to watch YouTube videos, use social networking sites like Facebook or to shop online on the grounds that it costs millions in lost productivity, but this is not always the case. "According to the study, these" breaks Internet "would win 9% of productivity.
SECURING NETWORKS But if corporate managers are in a way to control filtering productivity Employees, officers of IT services to see another interest: protection against sites to trap users to install, for example, a virus on their workstation. If the main source of infection remains in the attachments emails, more and more scam artists try to attract users to sites trapped to bypass filters set up on courier.
Yet the system is not infallible, as evidenced by the Department of piracy economy in early March, however, who used filtering software. Several employees of the department have received an email, apparently from one of their colleagues, with an attached PDF document innocuous. But it contained spyware to take control of the remote computer and access to confidential documents, what tools the department could not prevent.
Beyond security issues, network administrators are also bandwidth-intensive sites, which can slow down access for other users. A study of the company Network Box, which sells solutions including filtering, 10% of the consumption of bandwidth in business would be on YouTube, Facebook and 5% (which includes videos and games).
An amount considered too important for applications often unprofessional, especially for small and medium-sized structures. "Congestion on Facebook (...) would have to buy more powerful servers," explained in the Midi Libre department of the CHU of Montpellier, who had decided in 2009 to block access to sites "fun".
LEGAL LIABILITY If these technical arguments were not enough to convince business leaders to adopt a filtering software companies have a punchline: the criminal liability of the employer in cases of fraudulent use of Internet by an employee (access child pornography sites, downloading and sharing illegal files ...).
The law is pretty vague about it, and open to interpretation. Where an employee consult with images of child pornography in the workplace, article 227-23 of the Penal Code "suggests that the responsibility of the employer could be sought from the fact that its employees could access such content "if it has not implemented a filtering solution," said Alain Bensoussan law firm in the study "Filtering and office Internet: issues and legal framework".
The firm concludes that "according to the famous principle of precaution, it is in the interest of [the employer] to implement and deploy measures to control Internet access. And for good reason: The study is financed and distributed by Olfeo, the main French manufacturer of filtering software for businesses.
The market is indeed lucrative for these publishers. It takes 2 000 to 17 000 euros plus taxes to protect and filter 50 to 1 000 posts for one year, 17 to 45 euros plus tax per computer in Olfeo, whose rates are lower than those of world leaders market, such as Websense. While the majority of large companies and administrations have opted for filtering, publishers are now the market is more complex but potentially lucrative small structures such as SMEs and SMIs. 
Although no national data is available - Websense, the leading filtering solutions, refuses to disclose its figures for France - almost all of very large companies and French administrations (national, territorial, hospital) are conducting filtering their local network. At the lowest level, 70% of companies with more than 500 employees have implemented such a solution, and 30% of firms with 250 employees, according Olfeo, a French company offering filtering solutions.
Let millions of employees involved in daily ... and not just to fight against the parties of Farmville in open spaces. "TIME LOST" AND PERSONAL SURFING Using non-professional sites remains one of the main reasons why companies set up a more or less selective filtering. A chord which are also companies marketing filter software, which do not hesitate to pound, supporting studies, the Facebook equivalent to break a deadweight loss to society: employees would spend about an hour and a half per day on the Internet, including one hour just for their personal surfing.
A drop of 14% productivity. Or, an annual cost to the company 2.5 times the monthly salary of the employee. Multiplied by the number of employees, the loss is in the millions. Some employees have already paid the price. In March 2009 the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal for serious misconduct by an employee who passed in December 2004, forty-one hours on the Internet for non-professional.
However, personal Web surfing is really falling productivity? A 2009 study from the University of Melbourne says otherwise. "A brief pause and non-invasive, as a quick surf on the Internet, allows the mind to rest, resulting in an increase in net total concentration on a working day, according to Dr.
Brent Cocker. Companies spend millions in software to prevent their employees to watch YouTube videos, use social networking sites like Facebook or to shop online on the grounds that it costs millions in lost productivity, but this is not always the case. "According to the study, these" breaks Internet "would win 9% of productivity.
SECURING NETWORKS But if corporate managers are in a way to control filtering productivity Employees, officers of IT services to see another interest: protection against sites to trap users to install, for example, a virus on their workstation. If the main source of infection remains in the attachments emails, more and more scam artists try to attract users to sites trapped to bypass filters set up on courier.
Yet the system is not infallible, as evidenced by the Department of piracy economy in early March, however, who used filtering software. Several employees of the department have received an email, apparently from one of their colleagues, with an attached PDF document innocuous. But it contained spyware to take control of the remote computer and access to confidential documents, what tools the department could not prevent.
Beyond security issues, network administrators are also bandwidth-intensive sites, which can slow down access for other users. A study of the company Network Box, which sells solutions including filtering, 10% of the consumption of bandwidth in business would be on YouTube, Facebook and 5% (which includes videos and games).
An amount considered too important for applications often unprofessional, especially for small and medium-sized structures. "Congestion on Facebook (...) would have to buy more powerful servers," explained in the Midi Libre department of the CHU of Montpellier, who had decided in 2009 to block access to sites "fun".
LEGAL LIABILITY If these technical arguments were not enough to convince business leaders to adopt a filtering software companies have a punchline: the criminal liability of the employer in cases of fraudulent use of Internet by an employee (access child pornography sites, downloading and sharing illegal files ...).
The law is pretty vague about it, and open to interpretation. Where an employee consult with images of child pornography in the workplace, article 227-23 of the Penal Code "suggests that the responsibility of the employer could be sought from the fact that its employees could access such content "if it has not implemented a filtering solution," said Alain Bensoussan law firm in the study "Filtering and office Internet: issues and legal framework".
The firm concludes that "according to the famous principle of precaution, it is in the interest of [the employer] to implement and deploy measures to control Internet access. And for good reason: The study is financed and distributed by Olfeo, the main French manufacturer of filtering software for businesses.
The market is indeed lucrative for these publishers. It takes 2 000 to 17 000 euros plus taxes to protect and filter 50 to 1 000 posts for one year, 17 to 45 euros plus tax per computer in Olfeo, whose rates are lower than those of world leaders market, such as Websense. While the majority of large companies and administrations have opted for filtering, publishers are now the market is more complex but potentially lucrative small structures such as SMEs and SMIs.
No comments:
Post a Comment