When Big Brother Watches IT 234
Posted
by
samzenpus
from the cc-me dept.
from the cc-me dept.
bdking writes "In an effort to protect sensitive data from internal security threats, some organizations are 'using new technology to look at the language of their IT staff's emails to determine whether their behavior or mind-set has changed,' the Wall Street Journal reports. Is secretly spying on and linguistically interpreting employee emails going too far in the name of security? From the article: 'I understand the need to be aware of the attitudes of workers with high-level access to data and networks, but this strikes me as creepy. What if an IT employee suddenly has relationship problems or family issues? Will they then be flagged by HR as potentially troublesome or even a data security risk? And all without them even knowing there's a dossier being created of them and their "suspect" behavior?'"
Prevention cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
Wouldn't it just be cheaper to not treat workers like shit?
Security (Score:5, Informative)
The it security team trumps the it sysadmin team.
Re:Prevention cheaper (Score:5, Informative)
It’s one of odd things – how do you monitor employees without draconian controls? I think the trust of these programs is not that they can detect fraud per say, but rather they can identify people and situations which generate extra temptation. It does not matter how well you treat your employees, if somebody develops a gambling addiction (see below) it does not matter how well you pay them.
Here's another article.
http://www.economist.com/node/21547833 [economist.com]
In this case they are talking about detecting fraud with people who have level access to the books – think rouge trades and embezzling employers. However, from the article fraud comes from “incentive, rationalisation and opportunity”. You try to hire competent, well paid staff and put in controls. However, eventually you hit limits.
From personal experience, I know of a case in my company where a mid level middle age employee who had been with the company for over 20 years developed a gambling addiction. Over the course of 18 months she embezzled over $200,000 from the company via hundreds of transactions. She had been around long enough to know that the individual small amounts would never trigger a review
I would
Re:A more important question. (Score:4, Informative)
A more important question is why would anyone take anything said at "ITWorld" as factual?
It's not just ITWorld's say-so. They cite this WSJ article [wsj.com], which also says so.