SURVEY SAYS: Do You Have Web Filters at Work?

March 4, 2010 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Every week I get an email from someone on a particular issue. 

Specifically, every week I get an email from someone (generally different “someones”) – and there have been comments in these surveys – about readers unable to fully appreciate the video element of the Friday Files because YouTube is blocked, and every so often I will inadvertently use a word in the newsdash that causes it to get blocked by some email systems (believe it or not, “prescription” is a bad word, as is “harassment”).  

The story about an employer blocking access to certain social networking sites (see  Hospital Filters Internet Use over Productivity and Privacy Concerns) reminds us that, while we live in an increasingly open world, walls are still present for a variety of reasons – anything from a desire to prevent the abuses of those who would spend time playing instead of working, to a need to protect us from the attacks of computer viruses (some people will click on ANYTHING in an email).  Of course, it wasn’t that long ago that Internet access was limited for many of the same reasons (and doubtless still is in some places).

This week I asked readers if they were blocked from accessing some Web sites – and how they felt about that.  The responses, as you might imagine, were enlightening – and entertaining! 

First off, more than three-quarters of this week’s respondents have some kind of block; just over 67% said they did, and another 12% said there were blocks, although not for sites that they cared to check out.  Only 15% said they didn’t have to deal with those blocks, though 6% said they “weren’t sure” (presumably they haven’t tried to go “there” yet.  One reader noted, Due to my job responsibilities, I have access to some social networking sites, and probably could have access to others. (And I assume I’m blocked from porn, but haven’t tried accessing it!).”

Not surprisingly, “porn/sexually suggestive” sites were the most frequently cited – 77.5% said they couldn’t “go there.”

That said, Facebook (66.2%) and myspace (62%) were just behind, while gaming sites were named by (66.1%).

“Only” 56.3% noted a block on Youtube (I’m open to suggestions for the Friday Files) – more than lottery sites (49.3%), Twitter (41.5%), and personal email sites (gmail, hotmail, etc.) were acknowledged by 34.5%).

“Other” sites noted included:

  • Anything that streams video or audio.  Anything related to shopping, or real estate, or automobiles, or political advocacy groups.  
  • Ebay  
  • Napster
  • Political sites, blogs  
  • Shopping  
  • Hate sites
  • Music sites
  • Sites with video
  • Message boards

And there were some examples:

Most anything that might be considered fun. That's OK we are strong believers in working at work.

We are also blocked from sites that have a dating connotation and those that use bad language, meaning dirty language, not poor grammar.

We are a small firm with multiple locations.  A blocked site indicates that someone was spending way too much time at the site!

Sometimes our firewalls keep us from doing things like filing workers' comp claims on-line.  There is a jobsite which sends me candidates that I cannot forward to other managers.

And “Big Brother” is clearly watching:

I don't know which ones, but if you hit one it tells you access denied.  It generates a report for management so they can see what sites people are trying to access.

All entertainment and social networking sites are blocked.  Further, management at all levels, is provided a weekly report on internet sites access by their subordinates, number of hits to the site, amount of time spent and whether any information was inputted to or downloaded from those site.   No one, with half a brain, objects to the stringent blocking policies. 

We just implemented a new system that sorts people into red, yellow and green, according to what access they have. I'm a green so I basically have almost everything except criminal, porn and gambling. However, the yellows (most of the company) are blocked from all the social networking sites and the reds (significant abusers) are blocked from everything except company specific sites.

My intuition tells me that we are probably blocked from the "porn/sexually suggestive sites", but I'm not going to test it to find out.

Anything that may be remotely related to something fun.

That said, there was plenty of support for the walls:

While at work, people should work.  There are enough distractions without adding electronic access to time-wasters that could cause us to receive sexual harassment complaints, lead to gambling addictions, or allow you to run your private business from our business.

I'm in favor. I recently talked to a friend who could access Facebook - and he inadvertently infected his company's computers by doing so. It cost his company a bunch of money (which he had to pay) and he nearly lost his job. My view is, if I don't need it for my job, then I don't need to be able to go there.

While not "blocked" technologically, there are prohibitive policies in place.  I'm sure that poor discretion with respect to de minimus usage would quickly lead certain blockage.

And others who thought the whole thing was unproductive:

Personally, I think we are all professional and should be treated with dignity.  Often, I feel the Yahoos in our IT department cannot see outside the box or in their case the small cube.

At one job I had they blocked just about everything and supposedly had super sensitive filters on the e-mails.  I had to research same-sex marriages and was blocked because they thought I was trying to get to gay and lesbian websites.  Their e-mail filter wouldn't let in mail from my plan vendors, but would allow spam porn e-mails in.

PLANSPONSOR Impact

Sadly, one of my favorite sites has – at least occasionally – fallen prey:

A daily news letter by the name of "Plan Sponsor" was blocked for a while.  Words like Se##x as in se##xual harassement, etc. apparently are not viewed favorably by the E-Mail police.  I see their point about not viewing these subjects favorably, but some of us actually have to deal with these claims.   The English language has not been enriched with the new derivations used to spell terms such as se**x.

Probably anything else that might be of interest as well-- it's pretty much only work related access, ...and I had to ask for permission to get to newsdash!

Talk about timing on a topic - Today is the first day I've been able to get NewsDash since mid-January.  While NewDash is not a site, per se, it was blocked by my IT Department (inadvertently I'm told).

The only problem I have is what is sent to junk mail.  Many times News Dash ends in my junk mail box while emails for viagra and other drugs don't!  Makes you wonder if the filters are really necessary.

I don't have a problem with most of the blocked sites. The only one I wish I had access to was YouTube.  I miss out on all your links. If there is a site I legitimately need to access and can't, IT will give me access to it. Unfortunately, I haven't come up with a legitimate reason to get YouTube access. Bummer.

My biggest complaint is PlanSponsor!  Love the Friday files but please id the ones that will attempt to open on YouTube.  Nothing more frustrating than reading the story but not seeing the end of it.  I would suspect most companies with an IT department are blocking the YouTube site."

Some of my favorite comments were:

I'm even blocked from two of my clients' sites!

Filters are an important element of our Employee Assistance Program, helping employees to keep from getting themselves fired.

With the addition of my iPhone, I really have no need to view these websites via my work computer.  I'm waiting for the day they confiscate those as we enter the building and then give them back to us at the end of the workday.

We have very zealous filters intended to cut out anything not directly work related.  It is extraordinarily annoying - from two perspectives: 1)  too frequently it gets in the way of legitimate business needs (for example, surveymonkey is blocked so we cannot participate in many industry survey's - or even this one).  We need to ultimately use our personal computer/internet to fulfill our job requirements2)  we are all about work/life balance, but in reality that just means that work can impede on life through long and off hours, but life can't interfere with work as it's being blocked!

But this week’s Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who said, I think the blocks are necessary and a good thing, except for the Lottery sites. How can I know whether I've won and can quit working?”      

Thanks to everyone who participated in our survey!  And I know you’ll love the verbatim on the following pages as well!

VERBATIMS

I understand why my employer blocks certain websites and there are times when I have accessed a website I need for my job at my home.  What I don't understand is how the co-workers can access their facebook or myspace at work while I can not access sites I need to perform my job.

I think certain restrictions that are clearly irrelevant to job function make sense (porn, sports, ebay, craig's list...) but social networking is increasingly relevant to work.

I cannot get to any advertisements, i. e. the top of Google searches; but I can get the same sites if I click on the Google search item in the list below.

I think the blocks are necessary and a good thing, except for the Lottery sites. How can I know whether I've won and can quit working?

I'm even blocked from two of my clients' sites!

Filters are an important element of our Employee Assistance Program, helping employees to keep from getting themselves fired.

It would be nice to be able to check personal email.

I believe my company has the right to limit access to certain sites.   After all, it is there computer and network.

Some sites are legitimately used for work (i.e. Facebook and YouTube) but since they are also used for fun, employees have to regulate their own behavior while at work. If they are wasting a lot of time on the internet it should show in their performance. That's what employers should focus on.

Our company encourages the use of social/networking sites for our clients/customers and increasing our company's presence there, however, we are blocked from using them.

"I answered 'yes' to question one above which is the correct answer for the company; however, in my position of HR Director I have full access and approve/disapprove access to sites that are blocked but may be important for someone's job (we are a publishing company with writers and editors who do research on the Internet, sometimes leading them to questionable websites that are blocked but which have some relevance to the articles they are working on, nonetheless).

MORE VERBATIMS

I can provide insight into the needs of blocking software from the corporate viewpoint in that I have had deal with employees who abused the system by accessing very inappropriate sites.  I know a lot more about a few individuals' fetishes than I ever wanted to know. Yes, they are in the minority but they ruin it for the rest of us because the potential for sexual harassment or hostile work environment charges is too great, too costly, and too damaging (reputation, brand and otherwise) too ignore.

Now that we have blocking software the danger is mitigated to the point where I don't have to worry about someone compromising another employee's security and well-being and putting this company at tremendous risk.  Besides, I really don't need to know that Joe has a thing for toes."

We don't block, but there is monitoring done on network with some undisclosed frequency and we have a code of conduct, signed by employees which addresses the issue of personal use.  If caught violating the code, there are penalties up to and including employment termination.  So it is personal responsibility with consequences; i.e., trust but verify.

Vast majority of time, I don't have a strong business need to go to the blocked sites (even though I often miss the Friday Files!)

I think it is a good idea that these are blocked.  Too much work time would be spent on them.

The block is in place for the 5-10% that would abuse the privilege of having access.

Some sites are blocked whose names are similar to "bad" sites, which is frustrating.

They are probably blocked for my benefit.  I'd me much more unproductive if I had my personal email or facebook up, however it'd be nice to access to personal email from time to time.

Too many impediments - but I understand they are needed to a certain extent

The only problem I have is what is sent to junk mail.  Many times News Dash ends in my junk mail box while emails for viagra and other drugs don't!  Makes you wonder if the filters are really necessary.

Its probably a good idea as long as its not too restrictive that it hinders legitimate access (even for non-work purposes).  There is always a need for a little leeway for people to conduct personal business while at the office.  The internet often replaces the telephone in this area and general access is needed to most non-threatening websites.

At one job I had they blocked just about everything and supposedly had super sensitive filters on the e-mails.  I had to research same-sex marriages and was blocked because they thought I was trying to get to gay and lesbian websites.  Their e-mail filter wouldn't let in mail from my plan vendors, but would allow spam porn e-mails in.

MORE VERBATIMS 

Filters are needed.  I know some co-workers who spend a lot of time searching the internet while at work.

Sometimes I am searching for something legitimate and work related and it gets swept up in the filters and a site on "401(k) limits", for example, might be banned as "pornography/adult content."  Frankly it makes me laugh.

Sometimes I can't get to sites that would be beneficial to my work.  So, you either look at them at home, or just use my phone. Either way, I sometimes wonder what happened to trusting your employee.

The blocks that have been put in place resulted partly from some violations (extended/frequent visits to porn sites, extensive visits to Ebay) and partly to prevent violations.  Some sites (like Ebay) are unblocked during lunch time while others are blocked 24/7.  I understand the unfortunate need for blocks and not only do i not have a problem with them I support them.

I don't see a problem blocking these sites.  It's amazing how much time a person can waste wondering through social networking sites like Facebook or You Tube.  Yes, I am speaking from personal experience!

I understand the concern for productivity, but I find employees are most productive when they have breaks during the day.  Certain of these web sites could afford a quick, convenient break.

They are necessary for all the reasons you mentioned.

This is the first company I've worked for that doesn't block anything, and I can see the dangers, based on what I know people will do with "spare time" and wandering minds.  This is a small family-run company and they've always trusted everyone, possibly a bit too much.  However, it is nice to see the trust!

We used to be blocked from youtube and social networking sites (except LinkedIn), but it appears those blocks are now gone, surprisingly enough.  I still don't use my work laptop to view any of that stuff...it's easy when you have a non-company sponsored iPhone!

I don't have a problem with most of the blocked sites. The only one I wish I had access to was YouTube.  I miss out on all your links. If there is a site I legitimately need to access and can't, IT will give me access to it. Unfortunately, I haven't come up with a legitimate reason to get YouTube access. Bummer.

"My employer trusts us to use good judgment when accessing the Web.  I do so with the knowledge that every site I visit could be recalled and used against me.  There are certain things I do only from my home machine...like accessing the ""truth"" about global warming, conservative blogs, and Tax Party Revolt information.  I am honestly more afraid of running afoul of the enviro-Nazis than the porn police.     

Sometimes when I am accessing a customer's extranet for a project, I will note certain Web sites that are blocked, like boortz.com when others, like YouTube, are readily available.  Facebook is one that I have often seen blocked at customer locations.

MORE VERBATIMS

I was once onsite at a major petroleum company for two months, and I had ZERO Web access and could only access the corporate Intranet. You had to get special permission to access ANYTHING on the Internet.  That seems a bit draconian, but they never had problems with spyware."

I work for a private non-profit that has very strict filters on internet usage and rightly so I believe.  If there is a website that a worker must have access to in order to do their job, then they are granted access.  For example, just because a couple of purchasers need access to eBay does not mean the whole company should have access.  We are all here to work, and knowing that we can not access non-productive websites keeps us focused on our work and fulfilling the mission of our ministry.  To me, it is just common sense.  We get paid to work not surf the internet.

I don't mind the blocks, especially because they can be removed if a reason for the removal can be made.

I first used the net while working in a Middle East country that blocks a lot of sites.  Learning to surf the web meant learning how to circumvent blocks, tracking software, history files, etc.

Generally I agree with the concept. However, the political filter frequently prevents accessing web sites that are analyzing regulations that impact my work, which is annoying.

"I agree with and see a need for filters at work. You are at work to work. What a concept! And, guess what? For all that work you do, you get a paycheck for it. Employees need to use discretion when browsing websites for personal use. In the past, I have witnessed constant abuse by colleagues use of the internet. The term ""internet addiction,"" could arguably be used for the colleagues I reference. However, there is also clearly a business need for internet use as it is a powerful and necessary tool. I use it all the time at work for my job. It's a necessary evil. Take it a step further and filters restricting the copying of data is just as important. With the compromise on security, it's necessary for companies to create prudent controls. How about those data breaches? As required by the HITECH Act, this posting of data compromises is not comforting.  http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/postedbreaches.html

Can't wait for what the future brings."

Makes sense to block them.  Not sure why we'd need access to those during work.

I'm happy to have the filters, but the shopping can be gotten to and not enough of the personal email is blocked to keep my staff from chatting and shopping.  The internet is definitely a useful too, but is also a time sump. I must include myself in that!

MORE VERBATIMS

It's annoying, but I do understand the need for it.  Working in HR, I know that many people lack the filter between right, wrong, and questionable work ethics.

"We have the ability to unlock some sites, like yours.  We have a few levels of users - those that have no access other than pre-approved sites and some that have open access to all but blocked sites or sites with blocked search topics.      

for my department I don't care who has it but then our reviews are mostly production and quality related so someone who spends all day surfing should have it reflected in their production/quality and what we do (testing) is stressful enough that sometimes we need a break."

Irritating as they may be in some cases, they are needed by employers for the very reasons you list in paragraph two.

Working for a public pension agency, we darn well better have filters at some level. I think it can go too far and you don't serve any useful purpose from blocking all social media site or web shopping, news, etc. If people are wasting too much time at work, it'll show in productivity. Unless people are abusing it across the board, let the people surf.d

Of all the site categories that you listed above, the only one I'd ever think about checking at work is sports sites.  I've got no reason to check my FB or youtube at work...that's why I've got internet access at home.

I understand the need to somehow control what employees do with their time on the computer at work. My guess is the vast majority do not waste time but would find it helpful from time to time to have access to these sites for convenience and not abuse. Problem remains "a few bad apples ALWAYS spoil it for the bunch"

I think filters are good, but there are many creative people who will find a way, no matter what.  It's just not possible to "legislate" behavior for those who don't want to.

While many sites don't have restricted access, those who access the sites are monitored to make sure their time spent on the sites isn't excessive. It really comes down to a productivity issue - the company realizes we all spend a lot of time at work and want/need to access personal sites during work hours.

I think it's fine. Sometimes you don't know that what you are clicking on is something that is inappropriate for work, so it helps you filter those situations and avoid embarrassment.

I know it's not necessarily for my position that these websites are blocked, but it would be nice to take a look at my facebook at lunch every once in a while.

working for a local government I understand the need to block these sites that should not need to be accessed during working hours.

I resent the fact that on my lunch hour I cannot access my personal e-mails and so I receive more personal e-mails at my work e-mail address.  Further, I try to work around blocks that exist on websites that I want to access by using other websites to access them or to obtain the information I want from an unblocked website.

I don't mind being blocked from social networking sites and youtube, but not sure why I am not able to see what time something is happening at church or to register for a computer class through community education.  I'm sure there is some logic behind it....?

I have access to FB, Twitter & Youtube on my phone, so if I really, really "need" to access something there, I can.

 

MORE VERBATIMS

"FOR - if I could get at games, Facebook, personal email I could easily find myself wasting company time instead of being productive. I would end up working late to get my deliverables delivered so no harm done, but there are plenty of folks who would just take advantage of it and not be as productive as they are paid to be.  I like not having the temptation at work - I have plenty of work to do and don't need distractions.      

Con - I do a little weekly Friday email to my team with jokes and trivia, sometimes a puzzle or a little something to end the week with (totally non-work related)  It's very difficult for me to gather info to include because many of the sites are blocked.  Sometimes I collect stuff at home but more often as not, I get the ""YOU HAVE TRIED TO ACCESS A FORBIDDEN SITE"" message and I'm probably on a watch-list of some sort as the associate who has gotten this message the most!"

I first joined Facebook when we were trying to terminate our 403(b) Plan and I used it to search for missing participants.  I found a missing participant who had moved out of the country over 10 years earlier.  Without Facebook, I am sure I would still be looking for her.

I don't really care, I have so much work to do I don't have time to do anything but my work.  If someone has time to surf the web they need to move around some work here.. lol

"I once worked for a Fortune 500 company.  What did management discover? Some of the younger male employees huddled around a computer and looking at sexually explicit materials.  Thankfully, the individuals involved were reprimanded and informed their employment would be terminated if their actions were repeated.       

Obviously there is a need for some controls and no two people may agree on what sites should be blocked.  With my current employer, on a case by case basis, sites can be unblocked for an employee if a business need is established.      

My biggest complaint is PlanSponsor!  Love the Friday files but please id the ones that will attempt to open on YouTube.  Nothing more frustrating than reading the story but not seeing the end of it.  I would suspect most companies with an IT department are blocking the YouTube site."

Being an old fogey - who's been know to send periodic personal e-mails - it seems the younger the user, the more promiscuous they are.

With the addition of my iPhone, I really have no need to view these websites via my work computer.  I'm waiting for the day they confiscate those as we enter the building and then give them back to us at the end of the workday.

While at work, people should work.  There are enough distractions without adding electronic access to time-wasters that could cause us to receive sexual harassment complaints, lead to gambling addictions, or allow you to run your private business from our business.

I'm in favor. I recently talked to a friend who could access Facebook - and he inadvertently infected his company's computers by doing so. It cost his company a bunch of money (which he had to pay) and he nearly lost his job. My view is, if I don't need it for my job, then I don't need to be able to go there.

While not "blocked" technologically, there are prohibitive policies in place.  I'm sure that poor discretion with respect to deminimus usage would quickly lead certain blockage.

I understand that with some individuals' lack of self control, and internet addictions, filters may be necessary to ensure that the work day remains productive.

All for it.  Viruses are nasty buggers.

MORE VERBATIMS

It seems pointless except for the offensive sites, but one person's offensive site may not be another's.  I would like to be able to see the things referred to in Plan Sponsor, but not enough to forward the email and look at the sites on my home computer.     

It can sometimes be an impediment to accessing content that's actually work- and industry-related.

I actually think it's a good thing.

Addiction to on-line pornography is a real and growing problem.  Its on-line fraternal twins are gambling sites.  Blocking such sites will never 'cure' the individual, but protects others, just as no-smoking in the workplace protects co-workers.

It is easy for employees to forget that computers and internet access are work tools.  Being in HR, you see the seedier side of employee use of work equipment.  I believe that filters are needed at work, provide a reminder for the appropriate use of work equipment and define the boundaries.

The personal email sites used to be allowed until recently when we got a whole bunch of viruses.  I think it's unfortunate because we spend so much time at work, it would have been nice to be able to check our personal emails.  I totally understand why employers block other social websites.

I understand why they're there.

It would be helpful if they could block certain sites from the people who are the issue, not the rest of us who have work ethics, just want to check on our break or lunch...

Many website that are "work related" are blocked too!

I don't usually have an issue with the sites I can't access.  I'm glad to have porn sites blocked so I don't accidently have one pop up from link with an unexpected result.

We get a pop up that our attempt to access a "malicious site' has been noted by IT. Eek.

We do have pop-up blockers and other blocks that prevent us from downloading programs or applets.  Our email goes through an outside service that checks for viruses and spam before it is delivered to us.  No matter what, any responsible company should put procedures in place to prevent viruses, etc. from getting into the system.  That is just a dollar and cents issue.  Nobody can afford to waste time getting rid of viruses.

I cringe every time I get the blocked site pop-up message at work, especially when it is totally innocent - for example there is a world of difference between WhiteHouse.gov and WhiteHouse.com. I do think that the filters are a good thing, for the most part.

If it's blocked, there's probably a good reason for it!

I have access to everything I need to access for business reasons, and everything I want to access for personal reasons (on my lunch, obviously - when else could I justify going to americanidol.com??).  The sites I'm blocked from are porn sites that I have absolutely no desire to access.  Everything else is wide open.

Personally, I think we are all professional and should be treated with dignity.  Often, I feel the Yahoos in our IT department cannot see outside the box or in their case the small cube.

I think for the most part these filters are important and appropriate at this stage in our understanding of these social networking sites.  I do think in the not so distant future, that restrictions will lesson as employers recognize the usefulness for communicating their own information.  Sometimes I find it frustrating but then again, bandwidth and accessibility are such an issue and I really don't have a business need to see the fun videos you might supply on work time.  If I want to see them bad enough, I wait until I get home to enjoy the fun. It's frustrating when it's a business need and I can't reach it but so far those have been few and far between.

MORE VERBATIMS

I wish I could get to the Friday files on youtube but otherwise I don't really have time for looking at these anyway.    Also with a little sophistication you can get around our filters to get to sports sites (haven't any reason to try for gaming or suggestive and always remind people that someone in IT can see exactly where you go so always use the idea that if you wouldn't want it posted on the Company bulletine board don't go there (or send that e-mail).

Definitely need them. They are too easy to start using and let the time get away. Plus, they just provide easier access to doing/saying things that can create potential liability for the comapny.

I think it's appropriate.  If I really want to see your links I just email them to my personal email and open them at home.

Big brother needs to make sure we're working for our money!  In all fairness, most folks have access to internet at home and should be doing their personal business there.  I - for one - don't particularly want the company to know ALL my business.

While I don't have a business need for most of the sites I'm blocked from accessing, it would be really nice to be able to access my personal e-mail during breaks or lunch.  It's hard enough somedays to manage both a personal and a professional life.

Yep -- blocked from accessing anything "fun/distracting . . ." – including Youtube, any personal e-mail sites (gmail, hotmail, etc.), ESPN, most blogs, and any sites that stream radio stations, among others.  As a manager, I'm actually glad they're blocked, although I will admit that the curiosity about some of the "Friday Files" does make me jealous sometimes! Of course, I can always forward an e-mail to my home email address if it's that important to see it . .

We have very zealous filters intended to cut out anything not directly work related.  It is extraordinarily annoying - from two perspectives:

1)  too frequently it gets in the way of legitimate business needs (for example, surveymonkey is blocked so we cannot participate in many industry survey's - or even this one).  We need to ultimately use our personal computer/internet to fulfill our job requirements

2)  we are all about work/life balance, but in reality that just means that work can impede on life through long and off hours, but life can't interfere with work as it's being blocked!

«