As others have pointed out, the article really raises two very different issues.The first is the standardization of applications software. The second is access to the internet using that standardized software. I would agree that standardization of implemented software is important for most businesses, as others have pointed out many (if not most) people are not really that computer savvy and they tend to mess things up and then go crying to IT. A related issue that has been noted is that many IT departments are rather small/underfunded, and have a hard enough time dealing with the basics of keeping a network going - they aren't staffed to spend time at individual computers fixing one-off problems. And 'malware', viruses, etc. that are simply a headache for a home user can indeed be horrible legal and monetary risks for a business.

But now let's talk about internet access (using approved software). Working for a State government I enjoy a "filter" that very much makes it hard to do my job - and makes it more expensive for the government. Look at typical things a criminal defense attorney might be called upon to do: To start with, using Facebook for basic research and investigation. FILTERED. Instead, we have to hire out to an "IT investigator" for $$$ the department doesn't have. Research on almost every topic related to substantive criminal law FILTERED. Research on breathalyzers? "Alcohol Related Site". Client charged with cock fighting? "Adult Content Site." Ditto with just about anything concerning a sex crime. Want to do a quick google on gambling regulation? "Gaming content." Is your client charged with a computer crime and you need to know about security software? "Hacking and related content." Specialized blogs by Attorneys are a treasure trove of specialized legal knowledge (often much more updated than Westlaw), and the ABA journal publishes the 500 best/most important legal blogs, etc. each year. Sorry, can't look at them at work. "Blogs content" not allowed.

Our overworked/underfunded IT department has been battling for 'exceptions' to the overall state IT regulations, and who knows, someday they may get them. Until then, however, the Internet is a far less useful tool at work than it should be. And for people who are intent on 'goofing off' during work --- they'll often just bring in something from home on a disc or stick. Even without the internet there are a myriad of ways to kill time with a computer.

I understand the limitations of WestLaw and LexisNexis research and it is possible to allow certain users unfiltered or less filtered internet access but it sounds like a case of working for a large org that doesn't have mechinisims in place to evaluate the needs of each department. That is different than allowing unfettered acess to everybody.

WestLaw does have the ability to send alerts when cases on a certain topic in a certain jurisdiction get decided and most law journals are included in it now. Not saying it's cheap.

This is a perfect example of the IT tail wagging the Corporate dog. At some point in the past, some IT expert determined that the way to solve their (IT's) problems was to put these restrictions in place and effectively transfer the problem into someone else's budget. To change that decision would impact IT, possibly negatively, so it must be opposed at all costs. This is common in many IT organizations, where the emphasis is on Information Technology, not on the company goals. The mission statement of an IT organization should be to use technology to make the achievement of the corporate goals as effortless as possible, with minimal impact to the employees and the company. I've seen too many IT organizations implement their mission statement in a completely opposite way, enamored with the cleverness of their solutions, regardless of the impact on the corporation. jim sullivan