need suggestion - employee monitoring software
NMN
screenshots live. So, from my machine, I could say "show me John Smith's
screen" right now. Plus it needs to do the normal stuff, like save the
logging information, etc. I've searched and found various software
titles but none advertise that they do "real time" screenshot monitoring
from a different computer.
Any suggestions?
Chiron Paixos
If you are looking for spyware just search for sub7, BackOrifice,NetBus
on any preferred search engine.
H C
> screenshots live. So, from my machine, I could say "show me John Smith's
> screen" right now.
If you want screen shots, that's one thing. Another is to use VNC, where you
can
see what's happening on the screen, and even take control.
> Plus it needs to do the normal stuff, like save the
> logging information, etc.
Perl scripts will do this. What platforms are you working with? It's kind of
important.
For example, you may have to configure the logging to get the info you want.
This is
particularly true on NT/2K. However, you can easily install a service to dump
the
EventLog to syslog, and collect it all locally.
NMN
"H C" <carv...@patriot.net> wrote in message
news:3BC08804...@patriot.net...
H C
Walter Roberson
NMN <newsDELETECAP...@DELETECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
:I need a software monitoring program that will allow me to monitor
:screenshots live. So, from my machine, I could say "show me John Smith's
:screen" right now.
If you *need* this kind of software, then you should just put a
request up through the chain of command and let the appropriate
military department handle it.
If you aren't military nor subject to the security procurement
rules of some three- or four- lettered acronym agency, you almost
certainly do not NEED such software... though you might have managed
to convince yourself that you WANT that kind of software.
Get back to us when you've modified your requirements to be such
that John Smith can *choose* to show you his screen. We prefer
not to advise people as to which software to use in order to violate
employees' civil rights.
H C
> not to advise people as to which software to use in order to violate
> employees' civil rights.
Interesting point. Having been a security manager for a telecomm, I'm curious
to know how, by monitoring systems purchased by and owned by the company,
said company is violating an employee's civil rights? Are you trying to imply
that
employees have some right to privacy when they come to work, use a company
computer, which consumes the electrical power that the company pays for?
NMN
As to reason, theft of electronic data is a good reason. Please give me the
benefit of the doubt as to reason, nevermind that it most certainly is
allowed by law.
"H C" <carv...@patriot.net> wrote in message
news:3BC0C38C...@patriot.net...
Walter Roberson
:Are you trying to imply
:that
:employees have some right to privacy when they come to work, use a company
:computer, which consumes the electrical power that the company pays for?
Exactly: employees *do* have some right to privacy on the computers they
use, in Canada and USA. Just as they have some right to privacy when
using telephones provided by the company, and when using desks provided
by the company that consume floor space that the company pays for.
I do not say that employees have an absolute right to privacy, but in
situations where there has not been a clear statement from the company
that their computer use WILL be monitored at any time, then civil rights
regarding "reasonable expectations of privacy" take effect.
I work for a branch of the Canadian government [which is *not* part of
the military at all]. Our branch's lawyers have told us clearly that as
soon as any electronic monitoring would start to target an individual
employee, that we should be checking with the lawyers; and that they
will either tell us to forget it, or else they will proceed to get a
wiretap warrant. In cases where we have -suspicion- but not the sort of
hard evidence that would stand up to a judge, then we are directed to
not even consider individual monitoring.
My boss's boss, the Director General, who has responsibility and authority
over -all- the local employees, does NOT have the authority to order me
to surreptitiously monitor any individual employee. His boss, a VP,
does not have that authority either.
We talked to the lawyers directly about the policy. The policy is based
upon advice from Treasury Board of Canada, whose lawyers advise them
that Section 8 of the Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms probably
applies to electronic monitoring when it says,
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search
or seizure.
As the Department of Canadian Heritage writes,
The purpose of section 8, according to the Supreme Court of
Canada, is to protect a reasonable expectation of privacy
This advice from the Treasury Board is not a "ruling", and no case
involving electronic monitoring has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada,
but Treasury Board is and extremely important department within the
Canadian Government, and this is the advice they are giving the rest
of the Canadian Government departments.
Walter Roberson
NMN <newsDELETECAP...@DELETECAPSyahoo.com> wrote:
:Even private companies may do so by law.
Not without clear notice.
:As to reason, theft of electronic data is a good reason.
If you have evidence of theft of electronic data, take it to a judge.
If you merely have a general suspicion that, if your employees
are not monitored that they *might* steal some electronic data, then
software to monitor desktop use is almost certainly the wrong approach
to reducing the likelyhood that employees will steal from the company.
:Please give me the
:benefit of the doubt as to reason, nevermind that it most certainly is
:allowed by law.
Well, at the moment, I have no doubt at all in -my- mind that your
reasons do not justify the action you propose.
H C
> Exactly: employees *do* have some right to privacy on the computers they
> use, in Canada and USA. Just as they have some right to privacy when
> using telephones provided by the company, and when using desks provided
> by the company that consume floor space that the company pays for.
Hhmm. Interesting. Do you have a reference for this. I ask, b/c what you say
goes
directly counter to what legal counsel stated, and the very basis of our security
policies,
not to mention the basis for a wide range of investigations we conducted.
> I do not say that employees have an absolute right to privacy, but in
> situations where there has not been a clear statement from the company
> that their computer use WILL be monitored at any time, then civil rights
> regarding "reasonable expectations of privacy" take effect.
Ah, okay, it's a bit clearer now. Yes, it was clear to all employees, before they
even r
received a system, that they could be subject to monitoring.
> I work for a branch of the Canadian government [which is *not* part of
> the military at all]. Our branch's lawyers have told us clearly that as
> soon as any electronic monitoring would start to target an individual
> employee, that we should be checking with the lawyers;
Correct. From what I've read here in the US, logs may be kept and used as
evidence as long as they are kept as part of normal business processes. Enabling
logging on a server, or via an IDS, to track a specific user after you suspect her
of
wrong doing is a no-no.
splatter
management prospective here in the US that's false. The computers, internet
connection, all are considered company property and can be monitored at any
time. IANAL but I'm sure your supposed to tell employee's that they are
monitored.
--
HTH
D.P.
"Beer, the cause of, and solution too,
all of life's problems"
Homer Simpson
Bill Unruh
]> We prefer
Yes. Just as they have the right to privacy of their locked desk drawers or their
lunch in the company fridge. IF you clearly announce to them that their work on
their workstations may be monitored, you may have an out. If not, then they
certainly retain privacy rights when they come to work for you. Eg, placing cameras
in toilet bowls owned by the company, flusing water paid for by the company would
still, I believe, be regarded as illegal. Emplyees are not slaves.
Freddy Fun Guy
installed on users PC without it loading an icon in the systray, remotely.
really entertaining to load it on Random PC's thru the inet and see what
people are doing. Hours of entertainment.
"NMN" <newsDELETECAP...@DELETECAPSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:vW_v7.27065$T24.11...@typhoon.san.rr.com...
Greg Panula
Maybe log activity(ftp, http, etc) between internal & external networks,
enable resource auditing on internal servers and of course install some
integrity tracking software(e.g. tripwire). That should provide plenty of
logs/information to track what someone the network is doing and when.
Then what is left is actually managing the people that you are responsible for
you and report to you. You know, actually talk to them and work towards
common goals.
Spending time on spyware is counter-productive. It erodes the level of trust
between you and your employees and it turns you into a baby-sitter. If you
feel you must baby-sit your employees, you either a) are a control freak b)
have incompetent employees c) general displine problem or d) all of the above.
In the end spyware is bad.
Greg
M.S. Bob
>
> Well, I'll throw in my .10. That may be the case in Canada, but from a
> management prospective here in the US that's false. The computers, internet
> connection, all are considered company property and can be monitored at any
> time. IANAL but I'm sure your supposed to tell employee's that they are
> monitored.
It is true in USA, Canada, UK, and the EU.
Some companies and H.R. departments don't want to be true or well known,
but it is.
People have the right to privacy in the workplace because they are
humans beings, and do not give up being citizens of a free country
between 9-5. They have a reasonable right to privacy in the workplace,
because they may need to use the telephone to make a doctor's
appointment during regular business hours Monday-Friday, they have to be
able to receive personal phone calls when their child is ill at school,
when they go to the restroom, when they get an email that their mother
has died, when checking the traffic conditions for the journey to and
from work, using online banking to verify their paycheque was deposited
to their account, checking a website in regards to medication or other
health and safety material, and in summary when their human needs and
personal lives cannot be contained outside of business hours.
That does not give an employee carte blanc to surf all day or tie up the
telephone with personal calls, but reason must be perserved.
Lassi Hippeläinen
<...>
> People have the right to privacy in the workplace because
...because they have work to do, and bosses harrassing them all the time
will prevent that. A company interested in results cannot afford an
athmosphere of mistrust.
Bosses who have nothing else to do than spy on their subordinates, are a
bad investment. Having the right to spy on someone is only one side of
the coin. The other one is that there has to be a boss spying on these
spying bosses, ad infinitum.
In summary: if you feel the urge to "monitor" your employees, have your
head examined.
-- Lassi
splatter
> In summary: if you feel the urge to "monitor" your > >employees, have your
head examined.
Lassi,
Well that's one method. But this isn't as easy a question to answer, and is
surly not as black and white as you make it.
The method of management, and argument your using is:. "Employees will do
their job, and I can trust them with minimal management."
He's suggesting a strong arm form: "Employee's are worthless and need to be
babysat in order to keep them working."
Now here's the dig, in my meager time in management I think their both
right. Employees can be the laziest SOB'S, makes you want to break out the
old cattle prod. They can also surprise the crap out of you sometimes and do
good when you didn't think it was possible.
So in the end you choose which style to use, but neither is "right" or
"wrong"
