I work in IT. I have worked in IT for nearly 10 years. The aforementioned article ("Why corporate IT should unchain our office computers") was written by someone so clueless that they should never be allowed to write again.

I'm going to take this point by point:

They've heard about the joys of Firefox, the wonders of Google Docs, or any number of other great programs or Web sites that might improve how they work. Indeed, they use these apps at home all the time, and they love them.

And half of their home computers are infected - keyloggers, rootkits, remote administration packages - that they don't even know are there, thanks to their browsing habits. At least once a week, I have an employee asking our IT department, on COMPANY time, to fix their home computer (which they "use for work", namely checking into the corporate webmail access on the weekend) for them. Invariably, the end result is that they screwed up, their home network is insecure, they turned off critical things like system updates because it was "annoying to have to restart", and they left themselves wide fucking open.

But at work they're stymied by the IT department, that class of interoffice Brahmins that decides, ridiculously and capriciously, how people should work.

We decide neither ridiculously nor capriciously. On the contrary, we do an amazing amount of testing DESPITE ever-shortening budgets, constant frivolous and wasteful demands on our time because people are incapable of following clearly written instructions (for example, jamming a toner cartridge into their printer without removing packaging clips, thus damaging the cartridge and the printer), and an ever-increasing list of applications we are expected to support at moment's notice so that when Janie Secretary can't figure out how to do her job, we can come in - without our having any formal training on the various forms and procedures involved, despite the fact that they just sent her off for a full WEEK of training - and teach her how to do her job again.

When we say an application has security holes, we are justified in saying so. When we point out that an application causes conflicts with another application already in-use in the office, we know what the fuck we are talking about. Our decisions and recommendations are neither ridiculous, nor capricious.

The secretary of state didn't know why Firefox was blocked; an aide stepped in to explain that the free program was too expensive—"it has to be administered, the patches have to be loaded." Isn't that how it always is? You ask your IT manager to let you use something that seems pretty safe and run-of-the-mill, and you're given an outlandish stock answer about administrative costs and unseen dangers lurking on the Web.

Google the phrase "Firefox vulnerability".

Again: we do not give "outlandish stock answers." We test. We verify. We approach from the area of caution, because it is OUR JOB to approach new software and software interactions that way. It is our primary job, not to make it so that you can do whatever you want all day, but to ensure that the network is secure, that your email is not compromised, that your bank account information is not compromised, that the various patents and secure documents stored in the systems are not compromised.

That "something that seems pretty safe and run-of-the-mill"? Oh, yeah. I remember you. You're the one who installed that "waving flag display" the month after 9/11 - the one that Bonzi Buddy, Weather Display, Weather Display 2, Popup Ad Software versions 2 all the way through fucking 92, and everything else that slowed your system to a crawl tagged in along with. Then WE had to come down and haul your assigned computer off, completely rebuild it to get rid of the insidious crap YOU let in, only to have your boss harassing our boss about how it was "taking so long" and how you were "without your computer" and why didn't "we" do more to stop it.

You're the one who two months ago clicked on the "ooh this is the newest thing on facebook but you have to be running this browser add-on to see it" crap, and got your system infested with a rootkit and keylogger. So not only did we have to sit and rebuild your system yet again, we had to force everyone in the department who may have logged in to it to change their passwords, we had to go to active scanning of the network for the communication ports it was using in case you'd done it on someone else's computer as well and just weren't fessing up.

Like TSA guards at the airport, workplace IT wardens are rarely amenable to rational argument.

Your "rational argument" means little given your history above.

As I've written before, switching from Outlook to Gmail changed my life; hosting my e-mail at Google freed me from methodically backing up old mail, which is an important way I remember my reporting contacts. When I worked in an office not long ago, though, a new man in IT decided that forwarding company mail to my Gmail account might violate the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Yep. And that's fine. RIGHT UP UNTIL the day where Gmail has a day like this: <link>

Then, what do you do? What happens when copies of a contract, supposed to be held in confidence, leak early because your Gmail account is compromised?

You think you are "reasonable." We spend many hours discussing, with management, what they want, what is needed for security, and trying to hash things out. At the end of the day, you have your "reasonable argument" with zero proof or documentation behind it, while we have over a decade's history of users causing problems because they got into something they shouldn't have. And every time a problem comes up, it costs money. Usually a significant amount of money.

Sure. Rather than restrict access for everyone—ensuring that nobody ever learns which programs are genuinely bad news and which are blocked just for convenience's sake—they can educate workers about how to use their computers.

We try to. Oh my god, how we try to educate users. We are CONSTANTLY trying to get management to set up training sessions where we can educate users on responsible computer use. We are constantly sending out information on the latest high-risk behavior and the latest scams and phishing trends to warn users so that IF they see, for example, the latest "hey clik this face book linky its rilly kewl" thing that redirects not to Facebook but to a website designed to, say, exploit a Firefox bug and download a malicious payload to your system, they will know to reject it.

You know what our attempts to educate users get? Ignored. We get told by users, "I don't have time to read all the stuff you send out." We get told by management that safe-computing education sessions are a "waste" of "time that could be more productively spent on-task." And then, when inevitably some dumbass like you with a web connection and a little too much privilege to install or download things sets a worm loose on the network and shuts half the company down or makes the email server inaccessible because it's handling 10000x its normal traffic load, management wants to know why we "didn't do more to stop it."

In conclusion: Farhad Manjoo, you should never be allowed to write again. You don't know the first thing about what you are talking about, and are doubtless one of the problem users that ruined it for everyone.

As an IT member I wholehearedly agree with EVERYTHING you said! It's the same no matter where you work or what industry - those IT people (as if we are a disgusting, subhuman members of society) only make it harder for the real workers to do their jobs. But we're the one who get the feedback from upper management about why everything is so bad on the network or why it runs so slow. Or my personal favorite - that Apples don't have these kinds of problems and why don't we use those.

I think next time you should be the one to write an article for Slate on the stuidity of the average office worker who thinks their whims trump the needs of the entire company.

If I could give you a +10, I would. I'm a former IT Administrator/Manager and I came in to post basically what you just posted. I actually left the field (I'm now a web developer) because I was sick of being the bad guy 100% of the time.

Either I'm an asshole (and possibly a terrorist) for telling you to uninstall that waving flag program (for those who are curious, yes that was a real program and yes it was full of bad shit), or I'm an asshole because I didn't take steps to stop these computers from installing "bad programs".

I'm also an asshole when I tell you to stop running IIS on your computer, and then I'm an asshole because your computer got Nimda/CodeRed and I had to spend twice as long as usual cleaning it because I can't plug it back into the network until I'm sure its safe. And then I'm "creepy" because I somehow know when you turn IIS back on right fucking afterwards (thank you, nmap).

I got laid off from that job and worked my way into database administration and then programming. Unless I really needed the job, I'd probably never go back. When you do tech support, you can't win. Either you have nothing to do because you've done your job right (and therefore they think you're not doing your job because you're never seen doing anything) or you're really busy because everything is breaking (and therefore they think you're not doing your job because everything is breaking). I don't know if Slate has its own IT department or if they outsource to a local company, but if the former, I really really really hope those IT guys see this article. Maybe they'll "accidentally" trip over Mr. Manjoo's Ethernet cable in the server room a few times a week.

Actually, you're an asshole because you're acting like an asshole. If you're giving the above poster a "10+" for such a condescending post, filled with exaggerated assertions ("half of their home computers are infected" Really? He's checked them all?) and name-calling, then, yes, you're an asshole.

You should read the other posts here in the Fray about IT managers' lack of social skills being a factor in how workers relate to them. Better yet — watch those old SNL skits with Jimmy Fallon as "your company's computer guy." Pretty much nails it.

The only thing that I found you are missing, is the fact that end users without any limits also fill their machines with software without proper licenses (most likely pirated) opening up a whole new can of worms with the BSA.

I use to work as a BSA license-policing attorney. The vast majority of our cases were from disgruntled former employees ratting out employers for using 12 copies of an Enterprise system when they only bought 2, or had installed 150 copies of Adobe products with only 7 licenses.

This "problem" generally came from the bosses and IT, not the individual workers.

It really comes down to this:

There are times when we just don't know that we don't know. That goes for anything and everything, not just IT related subjects. Food for thought for us all.

Great response btw ITGuru42.
Having worked in IT, I laughed so hard in regards to your response... tears were about to fall down my face! ;''D

P.S. I give Farhad kudos for posting the article- it did what it needed to do. Well done. :)

yep ITGruru hit it spot on. Users see their computers as toys and entertainment devices to relieve their crappy employment lives.

au contraire The computer is there to make their employment lives crappy. that is its purpose.

the sooner you understand that, the better a computer user you will be.

end users without any limits also fill their machines with software without proper licenses (most likely pirated)

Even if it's not pirated, there are plenty of licensing pitfalls.

Want to install Spybot? It's "free" for educational sector and personal use. It's not free for business use.

Same goes for Winrar and Winzip.

Same goes for a ton of the other popular "small utility" programs. They may be "free" for home users, or not give a rat's ass about seeing a whole ton of people on AT&T or Comcrap's network popping up using the "trialware" version (the one with the little pop-up "register me if you like me" balloon) forever. After all, it's market share.

On the other hand, say they see a corporate network pop up, and they're being pinged 5000 times a day (since most of those tend to "phone home" about updates anyways, nevermind the tracking aspect) from it. Congratulations, your corporate lawyers just got hit with an injunction: pay up, or get sued.

Oh, but the IT guys who say "sorry, you can't install that, we don't have a corporate site-license"? Yeah, we're the "big meanies" who are keeping you from downloading and installing it "for no good reason."

Actually, you're an asshole because you're acting like an asshole. If you're giving the above poster a "10+" for such a condescending post, filled with exaggerated assertions ("half of their home computers are infected" Really? He's checked them all?) and name-calling, then, yes, you're an asshole.

Let's see. Approximately 500 employees, approximately 250 requests to repair a home computer over a 3-year period.

And of course, we're talking about the "tip of the iceberg" here - this is NOT counting the ones who took their computer to Best Buy, or called Geek Squad, or called up their relative/son/boyfriend/etc to have their computer fixed instead.

It's no exaggeration. Home users are the biggest source of "zombie" machines - you know, the basic component of what we call "botnets" - for precisely this reason: they DO NOT follow safe computing practices or lock down their home networks. They routinely turn off critical things like automatic update settings and run out-of-date virus protection software, even when updated packages are offered for free from their ISP (and a number of ISP's have now decided it's cheaper to license and offer a virus protection package for all their users, and hopefully keep infection traffic down on their network, than to expect all their users to buy it).

Did it ever occur to you that IT managers have perfectly good social skills, but we choose not to waste the time trying to relate to baboons who can't even count to ten without calling the Help Desk?

And the "half their home computers are infected" estimate is extremely low. According to Webroot, who gets paid for doing professional scanning o the Internet to find infected computers, 89 percent are infected - that's amonst 9 out of 10. See <link>

And I have a crisp new Benjamin that says yours is one of them, you ignorant baboon.

au contraire The computer is there to make their employment lives crappy. that is its purpose.

No... the computer is a tool. It can be operated well, or operated poorly. Like many other tools, you are being entrusted to use it within the bounds set by your employer and in a way that is not harmful to your employer.

Most companies are fairly lenient. I've seen this in other fields (electricians, for example, who get to take the company truck full of equipment home over the weekend, but are responsible should it be stolen). Most companies don't let you take it home, but some provide laptops (or even home-office desktops!) and almost all don't mind a certain level of casual use (minor banking, personal email, etc) as long as it doesn't interfere with your job.

And then you get the one ass who screws it up for everyone. A good example: at the workplace of a friend, a middle-manager type got an infected attachment through his Yahoo mail, opened it up, and proceeded to get half their network infected with a worm. End result? Upper Management (not IT, mind you) decreed that henceforth Yahoo Mail would be blocked.