Why LiveJournal was banned at my workplace

[thefoxaroo]

An E-mail broadcast on Tuesday at my workplace explained that the company has needed to impose worded rules on community websites after a small number of employees had "made inappropriate comments on social network platforms that reflect badly on [the company].

"our HR functions globally to make sure that our standard terms and conditions of

Comments

[marmoe]

That's exactly why I go by pseudonym only. If you had been one of the offending parties, you would know by now. Making some of your posts friends-only might still be a good idea.

[thefoxaroo]

[Clears throat] Some considerable time back I set my default setting for posts to friends-only, with valued assistance from DHLawrence who showed me how to do so. The reason however was different: to cease receiving comments from somebody who has made their way into my black books.

Now days I only post publicly if there's an important announcement that needs to be seen by more than just my friends, Eg: the state of my health, my whearabouts and notice of absence (usually when travelling) or in this case the fact that I'm unable to use LiveJournal during business hours.

[marmoe]

Sorry, I had not paid too much attention to the security status of your posts. My comment was an ill-phrased advise of the obvious, sorry for that.

[thefoxaroo]

Not a problem little coloured gheko who hangs around with the spectacled flying fox! :)

[ccdesan]

Typical corporate behavior. Some folks have been sacked for blogging about their companies on off-hours, from home. Half of me understands the corporate line - I wouldn't want an employee of my firm badmouthing my company or its personnel - and the other half of me feels as though free speech is rapidly becoming a commodity of diminished value.

[thefoxaroo]

Actually I support the decision. There have been a lot of stories in the media about the PR of corporations being damaged by negative statements by individual employees.

More importantly the company that I work for handles a lot of sensitive information, and there's a very real risk that something could leak out. It's inconvenient to be barred from social networking sites, but I fully agree that it was necessary.

I just hope they don't ban access to web E-mail. I frequently end up having to work back late, and the only thing that keeps me sane is the ability to log in and check my inbox.

[carlfoxmarten]

Ah yes, the so-called "Analog Hole"...

[thefoxaroo]

Hi Carlfoxmarten!

[dhlawrence]

Might want to friends-lock this post--your data is showing...

[thefoxaroo]

Fully intended, in fact I had to go into the privacy settings to temporarily enable public posting.

This is a post I want all to see, for two reasons:
1) So that everyone knows that I can't post or reply on LJ during business hours. They'll need to wait until I'm home to receive anything from me.
2) Just in case... just in case my company wants to inspect what I've posted. They can see that I've posted this clearly, openly and honestly, and therefore I would hope that they DON'T need to inspect all the posts made exclusively for my friends.

[dhlawrence]

Certainly makes sense. Here's hoping it works in your favour should worst come to worst!

[deckardcanine]

The fact that they didn't mention LJ first makes me think you're not their prime suspect. But whether they suspect you or not, you aren't in trouble for it.

Hmm, I've mentioned my company by name, but never disparagingly. Grievances caused by moving around are minor, and the crappy rough transcripts don't reflect badly on my employer.

[thefoxaroo]

They've listed the sites alphabetically, F M & T.

In actual fact LiveJournal was not specifically mentioned in the E-mail broadcast; I've added it into the above message because even though not mentioned the website HAS been blocked.

I'm not worried - I highly doubt that I've comprimised my company or colleagues in any way. The main purpose of my LJ announcement is so that people know I can only attend to LJ during my free hours.