The irrational urge to block employee access to online content often results from a kind of mass hysteria: Somebody makes a claim and others blindly accept is as fact — especially if it was reported in the mainstream press.
Such is the case with one of the most oft-cited reasons for companies to block access to Facebook. No, not worries about lost productivity (which still ranks as most frequently cited rationale), but worries about the risk Facebook poses for infecting a company’s servers. It was reported that Facebook’s open API is leading to the development of apps that contain malware.
>p>
Well…not exactly. It’s actually “scareware.” And it’s not coming from any of the third-party apps, but from Facebook’s own “Facebook Flyers” application. As noted in a piece from Mashable:
These ads that show up on your Facebook pages in a similar manner to content-specific Google Ads has been found to be scamming folks left and right. Some of the discovered ads are posing as a dating service, redirecting you to a site that says “Your machine could be infected” and then onto a site for a product called Malware Alarm.
The people behind such marketing are still scum, but let’s be clear: This is a far cry from downloading a virus, yet that’s exactly the reason cited for blocking employee access to Facebook.
It would be nice if the IT powers that be would check their facts before falling in lockstep behind these ethically-challenged marketers.
4 comments ↓
Stupid, out dated information.
We have users that repeatedly get infected with viruses and spyware no matter what level or type of antivirus and antispyware software we install. It’s rather odd that ONLY THOSE particular users get re-infected day after day and that they all have MySpace accounts, FaceBook accounts, or whatever. Their employers have to continually pay us to come and clean these infections.
David, I wonder why so many companies that don’t block access don’t have these problems? When I speak to their leaders and IT management, they tell me it’s because of the practices they employ to safeguard their networks. Are they lying?
[...] a comment left recently to a post I wrote for Stop Blocking back in October 2007 about malware on Facebook, David Jones with CommerceMicro wrote: Stupid, out dated [...]
Sorry for the VERY delayed response. I didn’t expect a reply, but would enjoy a good dialogue on this topic.
No, I don’t think that other companies are lying. And I’m not saying that using any of the social networks or “goofing off” on the Internet is a guaranteed way to get infected with malware. What I AM saying is that this type of Internet usage DOES pose a security risk and there should be measures put in place to either reduce or ELIMINATE the risks associated with specific browsing habits. Some companies implement costly filtering appliances that are capable of blocking threats, while still allowing access to the site in question. Other companies have taken a more direct approach and simply chosen to limit or completely deny access to certain content. While there is no sure-fire way to remove all risks or threats of any kind, I believe there is nothing wrong with a company or organization that chooses to block OR record specific content that is accessed by employees while on company time and while using company property.
It all comes down to risk assessment. Given what is at stake, and with the current safeguarding methods available, I see nothing wrong with blocking this specific type of content.
Now, with that being said, I do hope that no one thinks I approve of filtering by service providers. What you do on your computer at home is your business. This is a different topic for a different day!
Side note: I appreciate you not being “snarky” about “out dated”!
Leave a Comment