Calling the Defence Rioters

this will be rolling out accross all Commonwelath agencies soon folks.

johnboy, I personally have no problem with pictures of summernats girls on your website. I was trying to explain the intricacies of Defence internet use policy.

By all means, put in a request to log in and post your RA comments from Defence. But don’t expect them to allow it just because lots of people want it. Lots of people want Hotmail, and Defence doesn’t allow that for the same reasons. People can still read the RA stories if they want to risk getting pinged for personal use of Defence internet resources – just like I can still check cricket scores if I’m too lazy to stick my head over the partition and look at the TV.

The official policy is that the only non-work websites we are allowed to access is internet banking, so we can check if we got paid. Like I said, it doesn’t matter if it’s common sense. It’s just how it is.

emd if anyone tries to tell you they have a zero tolerance policy for “unacceptable” content you’ll know you’re talking to a bullshitter, as there’s no such standard.

I’m sorry you didn’t like the summernats picture but it was in no way indecent and I ran it past a panel (which included a woman) to check for offence.

Now defence is entitled to run its internet the way it likes, but as long as popular sites with no work content are allowed we’re talking about a restraint of trade being perpetrated by unaccountable IT Nerds serving their own ends and not those of the users.

Many other blocked sites have become unblocked when users have expressed their thoughts on the block, all I’m asking is that Defence users unhappy with the block also express their views and let the chips fall where they may.

PS they haven’t yet noticed that baggygreen.com.au is not work-related. So please don’t tell them.

It doesn’t matter what common sense says about use of internet at work. What matters is that Defence has a zero tolerance policy on viewing unacceptable material (and they may well view some of the photos posted to RA as unacceptable). They also have a clear policy on personal use of the internet. So if you’re viewing RA at Defence, do so at your own risk. They DO log sites visited.

Defence is not a democracy. It just defends one.

Are you wif us or agin us vg!

Its their internet and, if other workplaces are anything to go by, every keystroke would be logged. Do you really want your boss listing the time you spend posting on RA when you were supposed to be working?

Take a break by doing something else. I occasionaly read RA at work, but never post from work.

They are the ones paying the Defence staff, they can tell them to do with their internet what they like

Defence IT Manager

Dear Sir/Madam

We share the same employer, the CW of A, and a damn good employer it is too!

Could I suggest you approach this matter from another angle?

Instead of seeing participation in Chat Rooms by employees as unproductive, you might see it as being the opposite.

Let me demonstrate this by my work-experience.

When people are light-on at work they, not unnaturally, want to talk. Unfortunately when they talk to me, I usually have work to do.

Its not a simple matter of telling them to go away as more often than not they are a Boss. And even if they aren’t, colleagues don’t take too kindly to being told to get lost and so in the interests of good relations one must entertain them to some degree.

However I believe if (temporarily) idle employees could tap into a chat room, they’d leave alone those who have work to do and the workplace would be as productive as it could be in the circumstances.

I can’t overstate the problem I have in my workplace with chatty people.

Yours sincerely

Luca

Point well taken – though I’d be surprised if the government isn’t paying for upstream bandwidth given the enormous amount it must generate (there are many ISPs that charge for bandwidth both ways).

In any case, my point was more based on the fact that the Defence employees should be using their own internet access to view (downstream bandwidth) and post here, or at any other site for that matter.

Might be anal of me… but having run several small business (apples and oranges when compared with the public service, but I believe the principle is the same) where my employees have completely and totally abused my good faith by using the work computer for internet purposes.

Not normally a problem, but when they surf the web instead of serving customers, or when they use my basic connection to download their rubbish and sit on MSN while I’m paying them to work, I have an issue with it.

I don’t think for a second that every public servant is sitting their surfing the web aimlessly, but I’m sure there are a few 😉

Posting a comment, however, is upstream bandwidth which is rarely a cost.

“I don’t think it costs extra the more you use the web. Isn’t gov web broadband and therefore it doesn’t matter??” – FC

It certainly does cost extra the more you use the web. It is all to do with bandwidth (ie, how much you use the web).

Granted, the Federal Government would have OODLES upon OODLES of bandwidth – but given the significant number of people that work at defence and throughout the rest of the PS, their collective ‘break surfing’ would be a considerable amount of bandwidth and thus would be a noteworthy line entry on the bandwidth bill.

In a user pays dynamic, as applied by a draconian public service organisation like Defence (yes Army boys I called you a public servant), using a broadband connection that was supplied by work for work purposes is the only way to go – kind of like putting blinkers on horses, only horses are a little smarter.

The acceptance that people can and should take breaks has never been recognised by Defence.

“People are allowed breaks… perhaps they should use that break to go and use internet access at their own expense. ”
I don’t think it costs extra the more you use the web. Isn’t gov web broadband and therefore it doesn’t matter??

The reason for the ban is supposedly “security”.

Whenever anyone emails from Defence, the email has to include “Sec: U” or “Sec: UNCLASSIFIED” in the subject title. In this way, the user is certifying that the contents of the email are unclassified and can be sent over the unsecure internet.

When posting to blogs (like RiotAct) or emailing from web based email sites (eg Yahoo Mail, or HotMail) there is no such mechanism.

It’s never going to prevent people from disclosing classified material inappropriately, but if it gives the people in charge of the IT policy a warm fuzzy….

People are allowed breaks… perhaps they should use that break to go and use internet access at their own expense.

I like sufing the net etc at lunch if I’m in the mood and now I can’t even access my “hotmail” email account as it has been blocked as an “unnacceptable” website. I think becuase the ads for dating services.

There “are” proxy pages that have their own browseres embedded in them – therefore allowing hidden browsing – although getting audited as having accessed such a site – you would get the book thrown at you.

Well, I’m in Defence, and I’m commenting right now. Then again, I’ve never logged out, so that may be why I’m getting away with it…

people are allowed to take breaks you know…

I don’t think this is such a bad thing. Work is for work. Now, what was I doing. Oh, thats right, i’m at work. Back to work.

How about they just work at work…..

Does this mean they are Defenceless to respond to our insults? Good-o.