So to run a public consultation, a member of the civil service has to apply for access to facebook? How long will this process take? I bet it will be much more cumbersome than starting up a group, selling some ads or whatever.

Are public consultations the only relevant use to a government employee? fb would be great as a tool for events, dissemenating information, etc. etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Not nec... a lot of people use the site to gather information and do research. I know this from working for the city government. We constantly used facebook for working purposes and it often saved a lot of time.

You really think someone is going to write an article about McGuinty banning fb, but using it himself? It'll be like 5 lines hidden somewhere that will make it look like an ad.

My point wasn't public consultations specifically, but just government business as a whole. There is no reason that an employee needs to be on facebook for personal reasons at work. If it is government work, what ever form that may take, then sure go ahead and use it for that reason.

It goes for the internet as a whole at work, at any work place. You almost always sign a technology usage agreement, to say that you will use it for work purposes, because otherwise you are costing the company money by goofing off, or exposing them to unnecessary risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko It goes for the internet as a whole at work, at any work place. You almost always sign a technology usage agreement, to say that you will use it for work purposes, because otherwise you are costing the company money by goofing off, or exposing them to unnecessary risk.

So why isn't this good enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Why not? we have allowed it to infringe on other adult's rights. Why stop now?

I know you prefer sweeping generalizations and slippery slopes but this is a good example where a rational person/society could draw a reasonable line and recognize that this going too far.

banning smoking in public places is different than legislating what one can do in the privacy of their own home (never mind the issue of this impacting a particular socio-economic class).


as for banning Facebook for gov't employees...it's akin to banning MSN, personal email, youtube and countless other apps. You're there to do your job, not play on the net (says the guy surfing TA, lol).

for those who truly need/benefit from Facebook, or any other banned app, in order to DO THEIR JOB, they should be able to request an exemption (which is the policy many most companies who ban apps have in place).

quote:

Originally posted by TO guy So why isn't this good enough?

That is like asking why does any IT department block any sites. These are employees, being paid to do a job with limited tools. If the organziation deems it important to block a site for a specific reason, then that is their mandate. If they deem it harmful to the organization, for monetary or security reasons, then they should take steps to prevent damage.

That is the difference between laws for people and and rules for workers. As citizens, we should be free to do what we want to do as we are not being paid, but as workers, we have an obligation to perform a duty within a certain scope.

/hijack

Honestly, is this whole driving mess because some guy couldn't control his kid, and then threw money at the situation to lobby the government to change a rule? Again a case of parents unwilling to control their kids, so they ask the government to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT as for banning Facebook for gov't employees...it's akin to banning MSN, personal email, youtube and countless other apps. You're there to do your job, not play on the net (says the guy surfing TA, lol). for those who truly need/benefit from Facebook, or any other banned app, in order to DO THEIR JOB, they should be able to request an exemption (which is the policy many most companies who ban apps have in place).

exactly, i was the main guy at banning sites () at a big govt agency (7500+ employees) and the first thing we banned back then were all those social-meeting sites, so many employees were wasting their time on them. Obviously MSN, Yahoo IM and all other IM were banned. We also banned porn/hate/offensive/online casinos sites which goes without say.

No one bitched about it, it didn't make the headlines.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by English Rachel I actually think that rule is silly but the point I am trying to make is that these are rules made trying to protect people, what's so wrong with that?

So it's silly; but the intentions are good; therefore it's acceptable? Come Rachel, there's no logic whatsoever in that. You have to look a little deeper at the issue here.

Last edited by infinity HiGH on Nov-25-2008 at 22:09

quote:

Originally posted by Orko That is like asking why does any IT department block any sites. These are employees, being paid to do a job with limited tools. If the organziation deems it important to block a site for a specific reason, then that is their mandate. If they deem it harmful to the organization, for monetary or security reasons, then they should take steps to prevent damage. That is the difference between laws for people and and rules for workers. As citizens, we should be free to do what we want to do as we are not being paid, but as workers, we have an obligation to perform a duty within a certain scope. /hijack

not ready to end the hijack yet

The point is this particular site is cleary not deemed harmful to the organization, as the head of the organization sees its usefullness.

quote:

Originally posted by MarkT I know you prefer sweeping generalizations and slippery slopes but this is a good example where a rational person/society could draw a reasonable line and recognize that this going too far.

thats YOUR opinion. As a rational person i think that line was crossed a long time ago. Others will say that the line is nowhere close to being drawn. This happens to be your line. And now maybe you understand my frustration. Or perhaps not.

quote:

banning smoking in public places is different than legislating what one can do in the privacy of their own home (never mind the issue of this impacting a particular socio-economic class).

So the rights of business owners of over 19 establishments (private property) and individuals who frequent them are not as important as those who have their homes paid for mainly by the government? How so? Just because they are poor they should have more rights?

I am fully against this measure btw. I am just trying to to find your reasoning behind why one set of people have more right over their private property than others.

quote:

as for banning Facebook for gov't employees...it's akin to banning MSN, personal email, youtube and countless other apps. You're there to do your job, not play on the net (says the guy surfing TA, lol).

that was the idea but even back then government employees were on record stating the difference between facebook and other things like MSN.

An aside: BY THE WAY... HAVING WORKED FOR THE CITY AND WITH THE POLICE OVER THE SUMMER I CAN TELL YOU THAT POLICE DO MONITOR SITES LIKE FACEBOOK AND TRANCE ADDICT TO GATHER EVIDENCE. POLICE CAN GET A WARRANT TO SEARCH FOR EVIDENCE BASED ON "CHATTER" FROM SITES LIKE THIS SO IN THE FUTURE BE SMARTER ABOUT WHAT GETS POSTED ON HERE

quote:

for those who truly need/benefit from Facebook, or any other banned app, in order to DO THEIR JOB, they should be able to request an exemption (which is the policy many most companies who ban apps have in place).

you have no idea who you are talking about. This is the public sector we are talking about here... To get any sort of exemption would require tonnes of paperwork and about 2 weeks processing. By then your need for the application is probably long gone anyways.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Its easy to let emotion cloud logic.

Yup. Wish more ppl could recognize this!

___________________
TECHNO IS THE BEST NOISE ON EARTH.
Save Techno - Stop Minimal / Tech-House