Our (small to medium-sized) company is going to start enforcing an internet policy which everyone, including the team of 4 senior developers, will be subject to.

Amongst other things, this means that developers will not be able to access:

  • web based e-mail (Hotmail, Yahoo, Googlemail)
  • instant messaging accounts (MSN Messenger)
  • social networking sites (Facebook)
  • streaming media (internet radio)

At the moment, we don't have any restrictions on our internet use, so I really want to find out what the effect on the team will be.

Please let me know your thoughts. What effect do you think this will have on the team (positive or negative).

+90  A: 

Being treated like a child. That can't have any bad effects, can it?

Alister Bulman
+1, amazingly on the nose
Adam Robinson
Yeah... also, Craig, you should better start looking for another job, for I don't foresee a bright future for your company...
+1, very very true.
Darryl E. Clarke
Sorry but this issue is way more complex than that, despite all the people voting for what they want to hear.
Of course it's more complex. Just let everyone eat the bread, and watch the circus.
Alister Bulman

Why will you be doing this? Have you had problems with it in the past? It seems to me like premature optimization. If someone doesn't get his work done, fire him. Simple as that.

Adam Jaskiewicz
+1  A: 

I'd be out of commission: I live on railscasts.com, etc.

If you're going to go nazi, why not just watch what is being done as it is now and try to curtail abuses? Hitting everyone with this right out of the gate assumes that everyone is an abuser and your morale dive will reflect this. I don't support doing the Big Brother on your employees, but if you're going to go down the evil empire road, you might as well do yourself a favor and not alienate your entire employee base.

Either way, you'll regret the decision. Deal with problem employees as problem employees. Don't treat everyone as guilty from the get-go.

+46  A: 

You might want to block online job-search sites too, because they're probably going to start using them as soon as you block the other ones. I know I would.

Australian Study Says Web Surfing Boosts Office Productivity

Chad Birch
You'll note that study also shows that there are limits beyond which it becomes basically addiction and not productive at all.
and get another ream of paper in - there'll be a run on the printer for resume/CVs
Alister Bulman
@cletus: clearly the way to combat that is simply to eliminate access altogether
Adam Robinson
+3  A: 

Developers aren't monkeys, and neither are your other employees. If you need to monitor, fine, but taking away any form of distracting internet browsing is just going to make your team members spend more time finding ways around it (and they will) than they might "waste", and they'll resent you.


I'm "baffled" by the fact that so many people don't seem to grasp that internet access can be -- and, I would venture to say, often is -- considered to be part of compensation. A developer (or any employee) has just as much of a right to expect unfettered internet access as a business owner or manager has to deny it. It's no different from any other amenity in this regard; if I have a prospective (or current) employer who offers me full access and one that doesn't but is otherwise equivalent, I'm going to go with the one who offers it, just as I'd go with one that offers me other bonuses like a gym, sponsorship deals, or better health insurance rates. The beauty of the capitalist system allows the wisdom of a particular business decision to be borne out in the aggregate success (or lack thereof) of the people and businesses that make it.

You can view it as a sense of entitlement if that fits your "them darn kids" sensibilities, but a sense of entitlement is what runs the business model. Workers feel they're entitled to their compensation, businesses feel they're entitled to the employee's work. They come to the mutual agreement that they'll trade one for the other. Internet access isn't any different.

And so, if you're providing them with full access now and plan to limit that, then expect the same reaction you'd get from limiting any other benefit.

Adam Robinson
+2  A: 

If it's a small company I think that the team leaders/managers should know what's going on and provide discipline when required.

Blocking of sites should only be required if the working culture within the company is poor.


If you really really have to then restrict Facebook, YouTube and so on, leave access to sites and forums about developing. I would leave some internal messaging system between them so they can complain about it and make a plan to start they own company, buy yours and fire all the bosses...which means all that will most probably have negative effect.

+3  A: 

I don't quite like the idea... In the company I work for they disabled all web pages that contained blog in the url, and we had to make requests to get access to a couple of boost proposed libraries that are held in such servers.

Me and a couple other colleagues have snippets, instructions, comments from other developers in our personal email accounts on common servers.

I can see and understand streaming media and social networks, but the problem is that when you start you must set the line at one point or another and getting the right point is probably not easy.

Also this kind of moves discourage the workers, it removes part of the feeling of belonging as it turns the company into an opponent. The company can be seen as the external entity you fight against. The company does not belong to you, you no longer belong to the company.

David Rodríguez - dribeas
+1. The comment about turning the company into an opponent is spot on.
Orion Edwards
+1  A: 

What's the point? Even if i go check my mails, visit dating sites etc. it only provides me with brief scenery changes, refreshes me and adds a little joy in a boring routine day.

I check gmail all the time. In fact on many days the page is constantly open. I don't want to be cut out from the rest of my life.

Instant messaging could be a distraction. But we use Skype as a standard way of communication between colleagues.

Social networking sites? Being not a user of those cannot say.

Streaming media? I constantly listen to my favourite radio with classic music. It give me a great boost in productivity.

Don't see what you wish to achieve? You'll just irritate people, they will get depressed and their productivity will drop. Someone maybe will go somewhere else.

Social networking sites are the real problem though (in my experience) because for some people they're easy to get carried away on (arguably addicted).
+5  A: 

Agreeing with everyone below, trust and honesty will get your farther then silly attempts to restrict. Anyone who really wants to subvert these restrictions can use open proxies and all sorts of fun tricks.

You're just making it annoying to work. If you have to restrict web access to make sure your employees are working, you've got larger cultural and work ethic problems to address. You are also unfairly punishing good employees. If you have specific problems with specific people deal with them on an individual basis.

+2  A: 

The only logical reason for blocking sites is to preserve bandwidth if you're billed by the usage. Other than that, monitor and fire the abusers. I know it echos what's already been said, but having come from a few large companies that tried several variations on the theme, blocking internet usage never has the intended effect - never.

+13  A: 

You're solving the 'slackers' problem the wrong way.

If you want to know the effect ask your staff. Tell them the 'problem' that needs solving (time wastage, bandwidth costs, etc) and the proposed solution. I'm sure they can do self governance better than IT.

Failing that, you're really just admitting that your management team can't manage problems and you have to use accountant like 'rules' to solve people problems.

This action will reflect badly on you (the management), and induces low morale to your staff as you're telling them you have no people skills or clue.

Simeon Pilgrim
+1  A: 

My question would be how much of these kinds of sites are being visited now? While we can speculate on its effects and describe what would happen if we had to live with it, there isn't any data to analyse what is currently going on. Perhaps those developers don't visit those kinds of sites at work and thus the effect is nothing is one possibility with an unknown probability.

JB King
+1  A: 

When I lived in Romania, if one person in the apartment building didn't pay their hot water bill, they shut it off for the whole building.

Where are your bosses from?

Your first point is a good one. The second point is just needlessly insulting. Also, I'll bet that the tardy person paid their water bill after that.Not that I'm condoning it. I'm just saying that glib answers don't solve complex problems.
They are, however, often adept at pointing out the absurdity of proposed solutions.
Adam Robinson
Oh, now. As the saying goes, some of my best friends are Romanian. :) By the way, not only did they shut it off for everyone, they posted in the lobby a list of the bills and who did and didn't pay. I expect the system is a holdover from Communist times.
+6  A: 

I've worked at a company that decided to ban anything with 'blog' in it (apparently "blogs are bad.... mmmmkay?"), which was a pretty ridiculous stance for development. They would add appropriate ones on a case by case basis but that just wasn't practical.

It's at this job that I discovered SSH tunnelling where I created my own proxy back to my home machine to get a clean feed of the internet. There's not a lot you can do to stop that either.

Someone else also quoted Workplace web bludging 'good for productivity':

"People who do surf the internet for fun at work - within a reasonable limit of less than 20 per cent of their total time in the office - are more productive by about nine per cent than those who don't,"

Curious language. 9% more productive overall or 9% more productive for the remaining 80% of the time? Also, cause isn't necessarily established. It may just be incidental to other factors.

Anyway, I've seen plenty of cases where people spend all day on some sites. Biggest offenders are:

  • Facebook (by far the #1);
  • MySpace;
  • Ebay;
  • Sports sites;
  • Messenger sites (Google/Yahoo/Live/etc);
  • Youtube.

Of those I think only Youtube has potential work-related use (lots of people post video tutorials and so forth).

I found the attitude (here and IRL) from some people to be somewhat bizarre with regards to this. I personally have no problem with blocking the first five from that list. You're there to do a job, not check or update the profile of you or your friends. The idea that you should be paid to sit on Facebook for 2 hours (20% from above) a day I find patently ridiculous. Do it on your own time.

In my office there's an issue of a magazine called Nett that has this on the front cover:

"Why aren't I the boss yet?" Generation Y enters the workforce

I think this is a pithy way of characterising this issue and I think it is particularly a Gen-Y thing: that sense of entitlement that colours this issue (and many others). The expectation of a fair day's work for a fair day's pay and the realization that you aren't doing anyone any favours by showing up to work to spend half the day on Facebook will hold you in better stead than demanding Facebook access or somehow thinking it justifies changing jobs if you don't get it.

+1 for the generation y-hiners.
Metro Smurf
If 2 hours is 20% of your work day, then you *are* doing it on your own time. (2 hours is 20% of 10 hours, which would presumably mean the 8 hours that salaried employees are paid for, plus two hours of your own, unpaid, time.)
Dave Sherohman
+10  A: 

IM can be useful for development work. I frequently ask other developers things via IM and they also ask me. Facebook, internet radio and the like are useful for short 1-2 minute breaks, and such short breaks usually improve productivity.

Good point about IMs. I do that too.
Use an Internal IM like IRC or Jabber
use in internal chat client like jabber, that way the only people the can chat with are who there are support to be chatting with
Bob The Janitor
+2  A: 

If I was part of your company, I'd QUIT!

For one, you will have to block ALL of the internet because otherwise they will just use Proxies to access their mail and any other black-listed sites. But if you do that, then how will your programmers use the internet professionally to conduct researches using Google or ask technical questions on StackOverflow?

If you see a few programmers watching some videos on YouTube, why do you even care if at the end of the day they deliver? If they are late on their projects (most software companies are), then do they have valid explanations?

Sometimes where I work, I won't feel like working for hours during the day and I'll browse a bit or do a bit of research by reading on the net. But then at night somewhere around 22:00 and midnight, where I'm more productive (and my boss doesn't see me), I'll get done what I missed out during the day and usually a lot more! My point is that my bosses aren't on my back for when its done and where it gets done. They just care that it does actually get done by the due date!


But where do we draw the line on unproductive habits? For example, I'm NOT a smoker, but when I walk by the hall I will always see the same group of people smoking. During a meeting once, which took a whole day, I could see outside and saw who smoked, so I counted how many times I saw people and tracked the average "smoke break". [I'm not a boss by the way]. Some people will go out and smoke as often as 6 or more times per day, while the average time was about 10 minutes. This is an entire hour wasted due to smoking... should we ban smoking at work also?

I would agree that productivity loss due to the internet should be controlled by possibly banning the top 'social networks'. But anything else is pure control by the employer because not everyone will abuse the system. Don't punish everyone because of a few bad apples. Handle each abusive employee case by case and the example will be set for everyone.

Not entirely true. Most web filtering packages can find proxies and block them on the fly. While they can be problematic (a classic example is blocking a page containing "Sussex" or "Essex") I've used perfectly fine solutions if you're using the internet honestly.

All those things beside WORK is call Life. If you have no life, good for you. I use all those "side" tools to get things done, get information, link with others.

Those restrictions, as somebody else said, can be bypassed pretty easily by a 10 year old kid. Free web proxies are available anywhere on the net. Schools use protection to prevent kids from getting on porn sites, and they access them anyway!

So you should tell people the problem in a big meeting and ask them for a solution. Sometimes they will find a solution which is harder on them than you could have proposed yourself. Things will almost stop for the next week, but the next and other weeks will become better and better.

Keep an eye on your employees, as you would for stealing stuff - stealing time is the same thing. Give warnings to abusers, and let the others live !

marc-andre menard

Are you nuts?!

EDIT -- Joke Disclaimer

This humor does not reflect the thoughts or opinions of either myself, my company, my friends, or my cat; don't quote me on that; don't quote me on anything; you may distribute this posting and all its associated parts freely but you may not make a profit from it or include the posting in commercial publications; further redistributions of this document or its parts are allowed; jokes are subject to change without notice; jokes are slightly enlarged to show detail; any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, is unintentional and purely coincidental; hand wash only, tumble dry on low heat; do not bend, fold, mutilate, or spindle; your mileage may vary; no substitutions allowed; for a limited time only; this offer is void where prohibited, taxed, or otherwise restricted; humor is provided "as is" without any warranties expressed or implied; user assumes full liabilities; not liable for damages due to use or misuse; an equal opportunity joke employer; no shoes, no shirt, no jokes; quantities are limited while supplies last; if defects are discovered, do not attempt to fix them yourself, but return to an authorized joke service center; caveat emptor; read at your own risk; parental advisory - explicit lyrics; text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, parental guidance is advised; keep away from sunlight, pets, and small children; limit one-per-family please; no money down; no purchase necessary; you need not be present to win; some assembly required; batteries are not included; action figures sold separately; no preservatives added; safety goggles may be required during use; sealed for your protection, do not use if the safety seal is broken; call before you dig; for external use only; if a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use; use only with proper ventilation; avoid extreme temperatures and store in a cool dry place; keep away from open flames and avoid inhaling fumes; avoid contact with mucous membranes; do not puncture, incinerate, or store above 120 degrees Fahrenheit; do not place near flammable or magnetic source; smoking these jokes may be hazardous to your health; the best safeguard, second only to abstinence, is the use of a good laugh; text used in these jokes is made from 100% recycled electrons and magnetic particles; no animals were used to test the hilarity of these jokes; no salt, MSG, artificial color or flavor added; if ingested, do not induce vomiting, if symptoms persist, consult a humorologist; jokes are ribbed for your pleasure; slippery when wet; must be 18 to enter; possible penalties for early withdrawal; slightly higher west of the Rockies; allow four to six weeks for delivery; disclaimer does not cover hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, volcanic eruption, earthquake, flood, and other Acts of God, misuse, neglect, unauthorized repair, damage from improper installation, typos, misspelled words, incorrect line voltage, missing or altered serial numbers, sonic boom vibrations, electromagnetic radiation from nuclear blasts, customer adjustments that are not covered in the joke list, and incidents owing to motor vehicle accidents, airplane crash, ship sinking, leaky roof, falling rocks, mud slides, forest fire, broken glass, flying projectiles, or dropping the item; other restrictions may apply. If something offends you, lighten up, get a life, and move on.

Apparently most programmers are sooo freaking serious that I should specifically disclaim all my jokes as http://www.michaelclark.name/jokes/disclaim.shtml
+1  A: 

I think the effect will be simple -

You'll have an immediate, large negative impact on morale.

You'll probably lose many of your better people, since they'd rather work in a company where they'll be treated with respect.

Depending on the current culture, you will likely reduce productivity, overall.

If your company faced with employees abusing internet usage, I'd look into dealing with the individual problems, not trying to impose a wide-scale blanket solution that will make everybody unhappy.

Reed Copsey
The idea that the better people will all leave cos they can't get to Facebook anymore is alarmist and preposterous.
@cletus: I agree - it's more the idea that management is that worried and micromanaging what I do, instead of trusting me to work effectively, would have a negative impact on morale. Over time, this will drive people away. I don't think it'll cause anybody to leave overnight. :)
Reed Copsey
I watched something very similar happen at a large company where i worked - it wasn't that they did any one thing that was bad - it was the attitude and many small things, and lead to 42% turnover the year following the changes (the year of the changes very little happened)
Reed Copsey
+2  A: 

I've always said to my friends that we developers are lucky. Unless there is a HUGE library in the building where we work and an equally big codebase at our fingertips, we NEED Internet access. IM'ing with fellow developers might be a point of debate, but basic Web access for simple research is usually not.

I think there's a question on ethics in all this. What's the difference between talking on the phone and e-mailing/IM'ing friends at work? What's the difference between taking a smoke/coffee break and watching a few short video clips? True, the temptation for doing the latter ones might be higher when you're spending most of the day in front of computers, but that is a problem we must solve as a whole race.

I dare say the slackers will find a way to slack off, with or without Facebook.

Talking on the phone, going on long breaks, etc are all pretty obvious. The problem with the internet is you're quietly sitting at your desk doing nothing so it's a lot harder to tell. BTW IMing was included in the above list.
You can always sit quietly at your desk doing nothing.
+1  A: 

This is pretty standard from the recent jobs I've had.

I agree with @cletus: do it on your own time, you're not paid to play. Most employees won't have the know-how to bypass the security, so it will work.

Not only is it about time-wasting, but it's also about security. Doing this helps stop the spread of viruses on the company's internal network.

Gary Kephart
blogs are not playing, neither are sites like OS that could be considered social network sites. Also, the MSDN forums are all at http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/. Not smart to cut those off.
John Saunders
And what the companies that I have worked for have done is to accept requests for exceptions to the rule. Everything I have asked for has been reasonable and accepted.
Gary Kephart
+2  A: 

I have worked for companies on both ends of the spectrum.

Usually the use of internet is a reflection of the overall culture of the company.

For example, where internet access was unmonitored, professionals were treated as such. In a culture where internet access is restricted, policies that most people take for granted (flexible hours, breaks as needed, etc) are restricted as well.

That said, there are often reasons WHY the company evolved into a more restrictive enviroment.


Effects on your team:

Only the people who cannot leave will stay.

You will be left with the least productive people.

I strongly suspect this is not a real question, but rather a troll post because it is nothing more than an inflammatory statement that is certain to rile up any technical discussion group.

People leaving over FAcebook? Either alarmist and unwarranted or be glad to be rid of them if it's that important to them.
Who said they would be leaving "because of facebook?" Maybe it's the streaming media? Maybe it's the personal email? Or maybe it's because they don't like being treated like redheaded stepchildren who can't be trusted with the computers on their desk.
Adam Robinson
Id not leave right away but id stop caring about company.
This is a real question -- there is a possibility that certain sites will blocked.
Craig HB
+5  A: 

I've worked in places which restrict internet access, and some that haven't. Here are some of my experiences. (Note, I've never had anything to do with such decisions, I've just had to live under them)

When you first turn on the restrictions, you'll get a HUGE backlash. While it's not as bad as making everyone take a paycut, it is still a very effective morale killer.

Once things have been around for a while and people are used to things, it won't have a big impact as long as you are sensible in what you block. For example, nobody cares that facebook or ebay are blocked, as everyone feels kind of guilty spending time on facebook at work anyway. I found that having had things like this blocked seemed to be beneficial as far as productivity goes.

If you take it too far and block sites or things that people find useful, then it gets really annoying, and people will start to invent workarounds and often make things worse. One company had a policy of blocking all .zip and .exe files from the internet - so people just downloaded things at home and brought them in on USB sticks (along with god knows what other things). This also made it incredibly hard for people to do their jobs (try download anything software related that's not in a zip file), which leads to massive amounts of time wasting as people try to find a non-zip-file form of downloading the software.

Basically, I'd make a very small list of sites that you'd consider to be totally worthless (ebay, facebook, maaaaybe youtube, and not much more), and just block those. Going any further is going to cause you more pain than it's worth, and you're not going to gain anything back in "productivity"

Orion Edwards
+2  A: 

If one can't be trusted to do their work, they shouldn't have been hired and if they are, they should be fired.

All developers work differently and when you're stuck on a problem it's sometimes best to take a break for a few minutes. That make be going for a 10 minute walk or checking the news or your facebook page.

Also, in our office a huge amount of communication is over IM. In fact, it use to be required we were signed in on MSN and Skype. It's much quicker then email and usually quicker than walking over to someone else's office.


It may not be work related, but the fact is if I'm at work 50+ hours a week, I will use personal email to coordinate my life outside of work. If you block gmail most people will just send their personal email from their work address.

When I was at a company that blocked gmail and wouldn't let me change my reply-to address, I just wrote myself a simple email program that sent email that appeared to be from my gmail address.

I think blocking any site is misguided, but blocking web mail is really dumb.


One thing that I haven't seen noted yet: all the MSDN and TechNet forums have "social" in their URLs: http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/, and http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/.

As for me, I'd be right out of a company that did this. I wouldn't be doing this only because I'd be getting treated as a child; I'd be doing it because it would be a clear indication of stupidity on the part of Management. Why stay with a company whose Management are actually stupid?

John Saunders

As a developer(not a manager) I fully appreciate the need for the occasional break or distraction in order to start back fresh and allowing access to sites and tools that help your team(developers or other) be more productive is smart business. I also think in today's environment allowing "reasonable" access in order to handle personal business during your off time(ie lunch) shouldn't be unexpected.

However the idea that your employer somehow owes you unhindered internet access is quite hilarious I think. And expecting free reign as if it were part of your "compensation" is quite naive. It is a tool that, in the work environment at least, is there to help you to do of all things....your work...not to entertain you! Would you expect your employer to supply you with a TV at your desk for those times you don't feel like working or just need a break? I think not.

Dan Adams
At the same time, they could take away your phone because you might get distracting personal calls and the personal items on your desk just distract you, so screw it - lets ban those as well. Seriously? It's like taking away a grocery Checker's calulator. You're not required to supply them with one, but wouldn't you rather have a happy employee with all the tools to do their job or a frustrated one? Especially when it's cheaper and easier to have them be happy?
Having the appropriate tools to do your job is important but being entertained while your supposed to be working isn't. An employer shouldn't be expected to allow the grocery checker to watch a movie or update his/her blog while they are supposed to be using the calculator to take care of customers.
Dan Adams
+1  A: 


No Online Music = No work will get done

No Online Music = No inspiration for designs

No Online Music = No patience for bugs

No Google = A shit-ton of books you are going to have to buy me.

No Google = Many wasted hours on small well documented bugs (external software...)

No Internet = Outdated technologies

No Internet = No use of open source code

No Internet = Screw it I would have quit by now.


Any restriction adds the company a minus.. How many minuses do you want? How many minuses you can add before people will start quitting? I don't know but you should try to find out the answers! ROFL

Adrian M.

Be prepared to also scout every port on every machine for OpenVPN, SSH and other such circumvention technologies. That is, for example, how I get around the Great Firewall to access all the sites the Chinese government think I shouldn't see.