(I put this in IMHO because I don’t believe there’s a definitive answer…mods feel free to move if needed)
I noticed that a whole buttload of non-work-related sites use Flash. I also noticed that if you don’t have the latest version of Flash, you can’t load a lot of these sites. So, if an employer (assuming rank and file users don’t have administrative rights, which I believe is likely in most organizations) simply doesn’t upgrade Flash, then scads of non-work-related sites won’t load at all. Voila, employee non-work-related surfing is significantly reduced. Is this a prevalent strategy, or is my workplace’s IT department just a bunch of lazy slugs who won’t keep their software/apps current?
I think the real question is, if you don’t want employees surfing the net at work, why do you give them internet access in the first place? Surely it can’t be that hard to block internet access to employees who don’t need it for their jobs. If there’s some kind of technical problem involved in that, I’d like someone to explain it to me.
I’d vote for either “lazy” or “just not prioritizing it”. Letting Flash get out of date would be a pretty blunt tool if you’re trying to curtail non-work-related surfing. First, there might well be legitimate sites that use plenty of Flash, and second, there are lots of illegitimate sties that have no Flash anywhere. So, I would doubt that they’re using this as a control tool. But I’m making a lot of assumptions about your IT department (e.g., that they’re competent, they have decent resources, etc.)
A filtering mechanism of some kind would be a much better solution. However, they can get expensive, and you need someone to devote enough time to managing them. If your IT department is on a shoestring, they might be looking at cheap ways to reduce unnecessary surfing or bandwidth use. I’ve never worked anyplace that let Flash get out of date as a way of doing this, but I suppose it’s not out of the question.
Just blocking internet access entirely for certain users, like LonesomePolecat suggests, would be cheap and relatively easy, but since almost everyone in an office setting needs the internet at least once in a while to get their job done, that would be a real pain for everyone.
Seems like it would be a rather crude way to implement surf controls - because there are a whole bunch of other diverting non-work sites that don’t require the latest version of Flash.
I could see that the cards might just fall that way - i.e. flash versions advance, someone asks for their browsers to be updated and the request is refused on the grounds that there’s just no business requirement for it, but a deliberate net filtering policy consisting of just not updating Flash would, I think, indicate gross incompetence and naivety on the part of the IT Dept.
OK, I get that you should never attribute to conspiracy what could be attributed to incompetence/laziness.
But, how about the increasing use by news sites of streaming-video-only news stories? Many workplaces flat out prohibit streaming video on work computers, and probably rightfully so, bandwidth-wise. So, why is it that it seems only stories of the “8 y.o. kid finds severed head in giant can of popcorn” sort get the streaming-video-only treatment, and not “CEO of Exploitation, Inc. get $100M bonus for leaving” type stories? Again, it seems like some sort of collusion between websites and employers to keep non-work-related info off of work computers.
I don’t really expect anyone to go “you know, you’re right, they’re all out to get us”…I just think there’s an odd coincidence that there seems to be a correlation between use of Flash/Streaming video and non-work-relatedness. Given that correlation (and the cost of filtering s/w), it might not be such an inelegant solution to just not upgrade Flash, etc.
I think incompetence/laziness may not be the correct answer either. Most IT departments that I’ve had experience with have plenty of “business related” work to do. Things like making sure everyone’s browser is updated with the latest Flash version isn’t even on their radar of things to worry about. Unless there is some application vital to the business that depends on the latest update, why should they bother with it?
I understand and agree with that sentiment; however, the version of Flash currently installed on my work computer is approximately 3 years out of date and two versions behind. There have been several windows updates installed here during this time, and updating Flash is not any different than that, really. It could have been practically effortlessly dropped in any number times since 2006, when the latest version came out.
I guess it could be part of some jobsworth IT guy’s subtle aggression towards at-work surfing - in the same sort of way that people sometimes take it upon themselves to enforce road speed limits by driving exactly at the limit in one of the outer lanes, when they could just as easily pull back in and let people pass.
There’s got to be some site out there somewhere that requires updated flash, and could reasonably be argued to be a benefit to work, hasn’t there? What about one of these mapping sites, or some online currency calculator or something?
Updating Flash is very different.
The Windows updates would have been implemented because they fixed security issues. Therefore it is worth the effort and risk. There is always a risk when applying any update that it will break things that were working fine. With no business reason to update Flash, there is no reason to take that risk.
I haven’t seen exactly what you describe before (usually, I’ve seen an all-or-nothing approach to streaming video), but I can see how it might work. They could be doing some keyword or other heuristic filtering on streaming video. So, “head in popcorn” looks pretty clearly non-work-related, so it gets blocked. But “CEO at Exploit, Inc.” doesn’t necessarily throw any flags. Your internal filter could be doing this entirely on its own without the websites’ collusion. Again, I have not seen that kind of video filtering in practice (at my current employer, we block all streaming video), but your IT dep’t could do that.
As far as the Flash thing, I agree that it should be kept up-to-date. Why haven’t they? Who knows? If I were running an IT dep’t, updating Flash would be relatively low on my priority list, and I could see it sliding down the list until someone with enough clout finally complained about it. This is not a good attitude, but prevalent. Pushing out Windows updates, by the way, is a different animal than Flash updates. At my employer, we have a nice slick process for making sure everyone (7500 PCs) gets weekly Windows updates. That does not include Flash or other software updates. I dunno if there is a way to update Flash automatically on PCs. If there isn’t a way to do it centrally, I’m definitely not going to be in a hurry to go out and touch every workstation so I can run the update with administrator-level rights. I’d probably just let the users suck it up until they complained. (I’m not a dick, really. That’s just probably how I’d prioritize)
Actually, my workplace doesn’t filter streaming content, they merely discourage it’s use. I think the usual workplace protocol is to either allow it or not, period.
Anyway, I was referring to news websites tendency to put “head in popcorn” type stories into streaming video only, but not other types of stories.
A quick glance at CNN.com shows the following headlines that are streaming video only:
**Country plans to export citizens’ kidneys
Cam shows man snap ‘upskirt’ pic of girl, 13
Dogs trained to sniff out bed bugs
Steve Irwin predicted early death, wife says**
Maybe they don’t want to waste resources on texting out “head in popcorn” stories or something…
Anyway, I reckon this Flash thing is just a matter of it not being a priority and having a superannuated stick in the mud (still sporting George Allen stickers on his truck) for an IT head. Lucky me.
::sigh:: Eh, I didn’t need to see the bedbug-sniffing dog story, anyway.
Our building is smack in the middle of the hospital’s campus, along two main roads, but our address is on a street no one has ever heard of, so I’ve sent the Google Street View link to several people if I had their email address.