Blocking websites doesn’t have to be a bad thing
The decision to start blocking websites is not one to be made lightly, but it is one all companies face eventually. Users with unrestricted Internet access find themselves constantly battling malware infections and at risk of information leakage, while companies that are blocking websites completely can find employee morale and productivity both adversely impacted. If blocking websites is something your company is investigating, here are some points to consider.
Why blocking some websites can be a good thing:
- Users accessing compromised websites and downloading infected files result in lost productivity and this means help desk staff must clean (or restage) users’ workstations. By blocking websites that are not business related you greatly reduce this risk.
- Downloading copyrighted material from the company’s network can expose the company to legal action. Blocking websites that host movies, music, and other content can protect the business from legal exposure.
- While some non-business related Internet access during work hours may not be a problem, users can waste hours surfing the web without even realizing it. Blocking websites can help to make sure users are focusing on their jobs, and not their social network.
- Blocking websites can also help conserve bandwidth for mission critical applications, and keep those charges down.
Why blocking all websites can be a bad thing:
- More and more businesses are turning to social media channels to promote their products and services, and make connections with their customers. Cutting off this channel can prove costly.
- IT is not the only department that uses the Internet to perform their job. Blocking websites can prevent a sales person from researching the competition or even finding out more about a potential customer.
- As more and more users are expected to take work home, permitting them a degree of personal Internet access while at work keeps things fair and protects employee morale, while blocking all Internet access is a short path to resentful employees who will feel untrusted.
How to go about blocking websites the right way:
- Establish an Internet usage policy that is fair and balanced, and ensure that all users are aware of what is considered appropriate and what is not.
- Permit a degree of personal Internet access, but monitor it to ensure it doesn’t impact productivity.
- Educate users on safe Internet habits, and the importance of adhering to policy.
- Implement web filtering software that can protect users from malware, block sites that are obviously not work appropriate, and that can whitelist sites that are business critical, like vendors, partners and customers.
Blocking websites is necessary, but should be done using a fair and open approach, and to protect users and the company’s information, but not with the attitude that you want to control your users. Keeping communications open between users, management and IT, and using the right web filtering solution, helps to ensure the company is protected and users are happy.
About the Author: David Kelleher
David Kelleher is Director of Public Relations at GFI Software. With over 20 years’ experience in media and communications, he has written extensively for business and tech publications and is an editor and regular contributor to Talk Tech to Me.
A flexible whitelist is so key to having a good blocking policy. Years ago, I worked at an inbound call center where we had web-blocking in place that was updated based on the amount of traffic a site received. If a site was being visited frequently enough, IT would check to see if the site was work related or not. This was a pretty effective way of shutting down sites that were eating up productivity.
At least, until the day ESPN.com got blocked and the employees grew extremely angry. Not because they were all sports fanatics, you see, but because our client was a major cable/satellite provider, and so we would often get calls asking about game availability or blackout restrictions – something that checking the channel’s website to investigate proved to be very helpful for.
Its also important to be able to cater for the different needs of the different departments. For example, it is highly likely that the Marketing department will be making “productive” use of Social Networks whilst possibly other departments could be granted limited use of Social Networks. Just like you said, the correct attitude is necessary to make sure no friction is created – but that’s true in everything not just blocking websites
It all comes down to what is good to the organization. If the company’s security and stability are compromise and malicious websites are the main perpetrators, then the business should implement a way to restrict Internet access – even if it disrupts research, sales, and marketing.
For me, blocking websites offer more benefits than harm but it should be “fair and balanced”. Big and multinational corporations already have Internet restriction policies, which should be emulated by their SME counterparts.
William your view of what is good to the organization is too broad. You should be specific because what is good to some maybe bad to others. Take for instance limiting Internet access in the workplace. This can be beneficial to small businesses but not to big companies. These two organizations have different environments. They are run and manage differently. They have diverse human resources and IT assets.
Yes, I agree with the “fair and balanced” thing. But we should also take into consideration those who will be affected. This is just a thought. We should have clearer and more precise ideas on how to properly block websites.
Flexibility is certainly the key. In most walks of life draconian decisions normally aren’t the right ones. In high pressure jobs it is important for employees to be able to relax and let off steam. The chats around the coffee machine or a quick phone call home to see how the kids are doing are normal part of corporate life.
Blocking access to social networks completely can be negative, however defining some core times when access is restricted will help keep employees focussed on their jobs, but opening up access again (say during the lunch hour) will help employees relax and be more productive in the afternoon.
I think the approach Greg suggests is the most flexible – it might take more resources to check new sites but a flexible whitelist should work in situations where your workers need access to some sites only. In those cases, when your workers’ jobs require research, for example, a whitelist will hardly work because your workers will be searching with Google and accessing multiple sites only once and a block will prevent them from doing their jobs.