If you work for First National Bank (FNB), congratulations. Chances are you won`t be able to read this column, and you certainly won`t be able to receive it if somebody tries to e-mail it to you. I know, because I tried. Nevertheless, you are a fine upstanding citizen.
People who work at FNB don`t use common profanities, those four-letter words so many of us depend on to let off some steam. Hell, they don`t even bitch about their co-workers behind their backs.
At least not on e-mail.
The e-mail filtering system at FNB has become somewhat notorious.
Phillip de Wet, Telecoms editor, ITWeb
The e-mail filtering system at FNB has become somewhat notorious, with many individuals, e-mail groups and innocent publications receiving the ominously capitalised yet comma-devoid message: "Script Profanity Porn and Racism Triggered".
If you have ever sent anyone at FNB a funny anecdote about your female dog eating your slippers, or referred to certain types of lingerie, that phrase is already familiar. If not, and if you were the kind of child who looked up dirty words in the dictionary, give it a try. There are hours of amusement to be had.
However, there is an important point that should not be forgotten amid all this fun. The FNB filter and many like it represent a new frontier in freedom of speech issues which, in SA at least, is still way below the radar.
The medium damns the message
Should a company be able to determine how employees use its resources? Definitely. Should a company be able to control how employees use its communication tools? Absolutely. But should a company be able to control the content that flows through such communication tools? Only partially, and then with the greatest of care.
Restricting private telephone calls made from work is fairly common anywhere you find bean counters. Telephone calls can be very expensive and even little costs add up in a big business.
Prohibiting personal e-mail being sent from office PCs is probably already equally forbidden in places, especially among those despicable industries that put time limits on the duration of staff toilet breaks. It is only those companies that want to squeeze the last drop of productivity from their workers that will do so - the cost of just about any plain text e-mail message, or two, or 100, is negligible once the basic Internet connection is paid.
But once you have the girls in the typing pool sending pictures of cute puppies to 100 of their closest friends, the bandwidth costs also become significant. Is action justified then? If you agree with telephone restrictions, yes. Filter for size, or for attachments if you can get away with it.
Content filtering, on the other hand, is insidious. Back to the real world analogies - does your company have people hanging around the sales office to make sure the pretty young things there don`t flirt with their prey? Do you monitor incoming calls and cut them off if a client swears at a support person? Or how about having a monitor sit in on each meeting to make sure nothing inappropriate is said during a brainstorming session?
Doing any of these would not only be wrong, it would be stupid. What is the difference when it comes to e-mail?
There will always be companies keen to turn their employees into little corporate drones with shoes you can see your face in and a vocabulary fit for a convent. Mercifully many of these soon find themselves out of business. But when a large bank openly admits it doesn`t trust its own employees and clients there is something very, very wrong with the world.
Share