I can't believe that came from your mouth!
Enterprises Still Ignoring Risk of Instant Messaging
Many organizations have simply given up when it comes to blocking external Instant Messaging. According to FaceTime communications, 1 in 4 employees admit to sending company information to outsiders, including passwords.
From Net-Security.org here:
FaceTime Communications warns that with one in four employees admitting to sending information about company plans, finances or password/login credentials via instant messaging, organizations need to wake up to the use of real-time communications within the workplace and ensure that they have the ability log, archive and retrieve them.
From my experience, at least 5% of all Instant Messaging traffic on the enterprise is either cyber-sex or communications between an employee cheating on his spouse. It makes for interesting reading when you are looking for incidents.
One day some lucky company is going to be subpoenaed for their Instant Messaging logfiles in a divorce case.
Like This Post? Rate it and tell your friends! Click the Share button below.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Dr. Jones on March 26, 2008 at 9:15 pm, and is filed under Cyber. Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback from your own site. |
about 3 years ago
Wooooooooow.
I actually thought my ex-husband might go there (subpoena IM and email records because he was paranoid), but he never did.
In your current place of employ did you have to sign a confidentiality agreement regarding data you stare at? My employer does not request that, and I’ve brought it up several times. They just “trust” us… Bad plan in my opinion but maybe a signed agreement means nothing.
about 3 years ago
Sure, for things that are intellectual property of the company. But emails and IM’s seem to me to be particularly vulnerable to a subpoena if they are of a personal nature. I don’t see how any enterprise could claim privacy and make it stick.
What would be more embarrassing? The fact that a company had to publicize that they didn’t have that information, or the fact that a company does have that info, but didn’t monitor it to prevent the behavior that prompted the subpoena?
Poppy, have you heard of a case where emails or IM’s from a company were requested due to a civil or marital dispute?
about 3 years ago
No, but we’ve had to collect data for the potential use in a potential court case.
(As in, we pulled a drive in case the IMs and emails needed to be used. Nothing came of it.)