Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Cellphones Handhelds Portables IT

Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z 443

Posted by Soulskill
from the what-do-you-mean-it's-against-policy dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Staff will routinely be bringing their own devices to work in five years time, according to IT industry experts in the UK. Some companies might already allow a few iPhones and iPads, but CIOs and businesses are not only going to have to support a general influx of consumer kits — they're going to need to get a whole lot more relaxed in general. 'Big businesses are going to have to become more flexible about how IT is provisioned and managed — to enable a new generation of workers who use consumer technologies to communicate and be productive.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why IT Needs To Change for Gen Z

Comments Filter:
  • by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Saturday May 21, 2011 @03:48PM (#36204048)

    Staff will routinely be bringing their own devices to work in five years time, according to IT industry experts in the UK

    Not where I work. Seriously, a *LOT* would have to change - like a move away from Windows networks, and that's not going to happen (sorry).

    • Yeah, I run a home office and I would rather provide a pc than have some virus infected vector on my network.

      -AI

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Yeah, I run a home office and I would rather provide a pc than have some virus infected vector on my network.

        -AI

        ... Your problem isn't virus vectors, it's hiring incompetent people.

        • by adamofgreyskull (640712) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @05:08PM (#36204594)
          A person can be a perfectly competent bookkeeper, accountant or any number of other things and yet not be competent (or diligent) enough to keep their machine virus-free.
          • A person can be a perfectly competent bookkeeper, accountant or any number of other things and yet not be competent (or diligent) enough to keep their machine virus-free.

            Technically true. A person can also be extremely intelligent but refuse to shower and constantly cut themselves. There is a minimum level of competence that should be required for a position. Sure, you can do task A - but can you show up to work with clothes on? And (arguably more importantly), can you stop looking at porn while at work? Oh, and while you're at it, don't install strange programs.

            I'm not saying you need to be a genius. I'm just saying that there is a certain level of competence that societ

    • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:02PM (#36204144)

      It SHOULD come down to a simple business decision.

      Is the advantage of adding those devices going to bring in more revenue than the extra effort and lost/compromised data is going to cost?

      • by speculatrix (678524) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:32PM (#36204344)

        I agree, but it's not just the revenues and cost, it's as much about securing the safety of the business's data (and their customers), and demonstrating a duty of care in the handling of that data. In some case there may be a legal requirement effectively preventing ANY use of the corporate network by the invididual.

        Computers provided by the employer should be seen as tools for the job, owned and operated by the employer solely for the benefit of the employer's business.

        If that laptop computer is owned by the business, the business can:

        • deny the user admin rights
        • install only the required applications and deny unnecessary applications (e.g. flash plugins, itunes etc)
        • set up whole disk encryption
        • install an anti-virus toolkit and ensure it is up to date
        • enforce the use of VPNs and proxies for any internet access
        • confiscation of the computer for any reason, such at the moment of job termination

        Many of the above actions are difficult or impossible if the employee uses their own laptop... unless the laptop is simply a thin client, but even then a key logger would be a security risk.

        There is already a big problem with people storing confidential information on laptop computers which leave the workplace. How this can be controlled if staff use their own?

        • by khasim (1285)

          I agree, but it's not just the revenues and cost, it's as much about securing the safety of the business's data (and their customers), and demonstrating a duty of care in the handling of that data.

          Except that violations of that kind are usually dealt with via fines or losing your compliance certification (which requires that you go through the process again after a certain time).

          Which can both be translated into MONEY.

          In some case there may be a legal requirement effectively preventing ANY use of the corpor

        • Ultimately I foresee a solution which has people using their device of choice as a thin client, with security checking done by the server against the contents of the device's storage media. Of course, supporting every device under such a scenario is unlikely to occur, and devices which are already essentially administered via the manufacturer (iOS) would be harder to verify authoritatively, to the point where most sane admins won't want to bother with them. Especially since an iOS device is not a proper rep
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Darinbob (1142669)

        I'd like to first see a correlation between those employees who bring their own devices and those employees who are productive.

      • by JamesP (688957)

        Correct

        but what you miss is: Is the advantage of alienating your workers worth your productivity?

        If you're happy with only doofuses working for you then go ahead.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SerpentMage (13390)

      No I do think people are missing a point. I think what will happen is that people will be allowed and encouraged to bring their own devices. BUT those devices will be treated as security risks. Then to get into the network it will be a sort of private cloud type situation.

      Think of it as follows; you bring your iphone and you access your corporate network using a terminal. That terminal does not let you share with the local environment. It is completely closed off from your own data. I have already seen some

    • by syousef (465911) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @06:57PM (#36205216) Journal

      My observation has been in the last 5 years security has become tighter and that there has been increased security. I use to be able to plug in my own laptop most places I worked. No longer. I use to be able to use social network sites and external email. Not for a few years now. Everything is getting locked down from SVN repositories to databases. Development environments including. Even developers are losing admin access on their own machines. If anything this trend is accelerating. I don't know what the person writing the article is smoking.

  • by Spad (470073)

    I'm all for flexibility, but allowing unmanageable, unsecurable, unmonitorable devices like the iPhone (Android isn't much better, Phone 7 is better but still a big step back from WM6), that IT departments will somehow have to support every time they go wrong because they're "being used for work" is simply unworkable.

    • by Larryish (1215510)

      True dat.

      Keep your fucking cellphone in your pocket, or better yet, leave it at home.

      Nothing worse than having an assistant or coworker who spends every free second texting everybody and their brother.

      How the fuck are they supposed to stay focused at work?

      • Nothing worse than having an assistant or coworker who spends every free second texting everybody and their brother.

        How the fuck are they supposed to stay focused at work?

        That sounds like a management issue. If your use of $whatever interferes with your ability to work, or with the ability of those around you to work -your boss should simply tell you to cut it out and fire you if you persist.

        • Re:Depends (Score:5, Informative)

          by Osgeld (1900440) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:47PM (#36204460)

          Agreed, it became a issue at my workplace with the guys on the warehouse floor, they are moving large heavy objects while operating forklifts while constantly texting. You cant get their attention cause its also jacked into their ears for MP3, and if you ask them a question they cant tell you what they did 5 seconds ago cause they are totally unfocused on their 1 simple task.

          Starting Monday if we see a celphone on the floor your gone, period.

  • Not on my watch (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:00PM (#36204124) Homepage Journal

    Bringing in non-managed hardware would be a security and support nightmare.

    its one thing allowing a personal phone to hit your email server, ( since connecting to them often means you get some control, such as remote wipe and its no worse than offering webaccess to mail ) but its a far different issue letting people bring in their personal computers and expect to have them on the network.

    No thanks.

    • So you let them bring them and connect to a partitioned network which you treat as a public network, and hit your email server just like they would over the internet. If they need more, make more requirements for VPN access.

      Perhaps you underestimate the number of companies that have already forgone many in-house systems in favor of publicly available services. Whether accessed from inside or outside the company network, they are public facing and are secured accordingly.

      The point is, if you have not alrea

    • Re:Not on my watch (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Opportunist (166417) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:32PM (#36204346)

      Pretty much what I was thinking.

      Ask your CSO/CISO what he thinks of that idea and tell me how long it took him to regain composure. Any security conscious company will monitor what machines are connected to their network and refuse "unknown" machines entry, they might get assigned a different network segment or nothing at all, but certainly these machines that are not under my (read: company's) control will NOT gain any access to anything. Even assuming that the owner isn't trying to "steal" anything, who tells me that nothing on the machine is, unbeknownst to the owner?

      You really expect a company to trust its employees to keep their computers clean? Companies that don't even trust their workers to actually, well, WORK when they're at work but feel the need to monitor their presence, behaviour and time on the can?

  • by nicholas22 (1945330) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:01PM (#36204138)
    Well, while I'm in charge, they can bring them alright but they can't plug them or use them for anything work related. Won't there be a capacity for company issued devices in five years time?
    • by Kenja (541830)
      I am reminded of an incident back in the dot com era. Some sales VP got an email with a virus, my security system wouldn't let him open it. His solution was to bring his personal laptop in, hook it into the company network and open the email. The resulting virus explored the entire network exploiting NT security share flaws and zeroing out (not just erasing, but filling with nulls) every MS Office document and source code file it could find.
      • I am reminded of an incident back in the dot com era. Some sales VP got an email with a virus, my security system wouldn't let him open it. His solution was to bring his personal laptop in, hook it into the company network and open the email. The resulting virus explored the entire network exploiting NT security share flaws and zeroing out (not just erasing, but filling with nulls) every MS Office document and source code file it could find.

        Sounds like your problem isn't a tech problem, it's a HR problem. Solution : Have some good IT policies in place ... but mainly, don't hire idiots. No matter how secure your network is, idiots will work around it. Instead of having a super secure network attacked by idiots, have smart staff and decent security.

  • You are welcome to bring in your equipment, and use it. I put time, effort and expense into protecting the company assets from harm, including that which may come from your random equipment on our network, accessing our data. Yes, it takes more (time/effort/expense) to work with your random equipment than it would to just lock you out and threaten you with $punishment when you try to use stuff. That is ok. We have adapted.

    Now when your stuff doesn't work, or you cant figure out how to do something with

    • I put time, effort and expense into protecting the company assets from harm, including that which may come from your random equipment on our network, accessing our data. Yes, it takes more (time/effort/expense) to work with your random equipment than it would to just lock you out and threaten you with $punishment when you try to use stuff.

      How are you doing that?

      I spend a lot of time locking out systems because I cannot tell the difference between your legitimate connection and your machine being used by som

  • by Bloodwine77 (913355) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:08PM (#36204186)

    Sorry, no matter what the generation, they should not be allowed to bring more attack vectors and security vulnerabilities in to the workplace.

    They are not special snowflakes, and their personal devices are not necessary for productivity.

    Businesses where mobile devices are useful and helpful should already have their infrastructures designed to handle it, so again Gen Z will make no difference.

    • by St.Creed (853824) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:22PM (#36204272)

      So your CEO walks in with his new iPhone and wants to access his mobile reporting solution. The one containing all his sales information. You're telling him he can't?
      And if the CEO has it, his underlings will have it a few weeks later. They still outrank you. You're going to tell them they can't have it? And when all the managers have it, how long will it be before EVERYONE has access?

      Seriously: start preparing, because the tidal wave is coming. It is already happening. 17% of companies now have a "bring-your-own-device" policy in place (a quote from 2 weeks ago by Claudia Imhoff, she spoke at a BI-event I was at). Some provide a choice: company laptop with maintenance or your own device but you do the maintenance. This will grow rapidly.

      Philips was migrating to this policy about 5 years ago. Big companies I'm working for are already preparing for that transition. The ones who are not, will find it very hard to satisfy their interal customers. They will also find retainment of new workers a big problem.

      Ofcourse this is difficult: it is most difficult for those companies that still have software in place with dedicated clientsoftware, beyond MS Office. Companies (like a few where I worked) that started moving away from that and to webbased apps, are in good position to actually profit from this move.

      • by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:39PM (#36204404)

        The ones who are not, will find it very hard to satisfy their interal customers.

        There aren't any "internal customers" because the concept of "customer" contains the element of "choice". If you don't like the service, you go to a different vendor. Internal departments do NOT have that option.

        They will also find retainment of new workers a big problem.

        The implication being that those "new workers" will be worth the additional considerations. I'm sure you can find enough skilled workers who do not demand that you support their personal electronics.

        Seriously: start preparing, because the tidal wave is coming. It is already happening.

        As can be said with most fads and bubbles. The question isn't whether it will be happening but whether it will be a new requirement. Or will it happen and then fade as the security issues become evident?

        Companies (like a few where I worked) that started moving away from that and to webbased apps, are in good position to actually profit from this move.

        Who cares about the software? It's the data that is important?

        Ofcourse this is difficult: it is most difficult for those companies that still have software in place with dedicated clientsoftware, beyond MS Office.

        It's about the data, not the software.

        Losing credit card info is a problem.

        Getting Excel running on your phone is not an issue.

        So your CEO walks in with his new iPhone and wants to access his mobile reporting solution. The one containing all his sales information. You're telling him he can't?

        That depends upon the situation. Do you have read-only access via a secured web site?

        What does he REALLY want to accomplish?

        He is the CEO. But that just means that he is the CEO.
        You can always find a new job.
        It's easier to find a new job while you're still working.
        Rather than AFTER you're fired because the company hits the papers for losing credit card info because of how you put a hole into your security for the CEO.
        And you know that it will be YOU who is fired first and blamed for not keeping the place secure enough.

      • The company will supply the CEO with a properly secured iPhone, just like Obama was supplied with a properly secured Blackberry.

        It won't be his personal device. There are too many legal issues associated with having a CEO carrying around a device that doesn't adhere to the variety of requirements of a corporate officer.

        • by Lehk228 (705449)
          a properly secured blackberry is one with encryption enabled and tied to a BES server, a properly secured iphone is one which does not contain anything worth stealing
      • by petes_PoV (912422)

        You're going to tell them they can't have it?

        No of course you don't dent anything to people more senior than you. But have you ever heard a drill sergeat chewing out a squad of officer recruits? There are ways and means (just put "sir" on the end). You tell them "That's a great idea. I'll get right on it. Oh - and I'll need your cost code for this work ..... you do have a cost code, don't you?" or "Yup, sure. Is that the Mark 3 or the Mark 4, cos those old Mark 2's well - they're just not up to it. ... Oh, that's a shame" and any sysadmin worth his/he

      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        The CEO makes the decisions :-) Generally everywhere I've seen IT bends over backwards to help out the executives (including home computer repair service for retired execs in some cases). When you're an overhead organization your very survival depends on keeping the bosses happy.

      • by sthomas (132075)

        You are correct that this type of request is common from executive, and that IT bends over backwards to attempt to accommodate it. As the Security Officer of my company, I have a Risk Acceptance form that needs to be signed for this type of situation. It requires a signature by an Officer of the company, and if the requester is an Officer, it requires the CEO's signature. As the Chief Executive, the CEO is authorized to sign his own requests. HOWEVER, all of these forms are provided to the Audit Committ

      • by Gonoff (88518) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @05:48PM (#36204836)

        You're telling him he can't?

        Absolutely! Recently,my manager was on holiday and our director walks into the room with a small Android phone and said "Can you connect the new chairmans smartphone to the hospital network?" It was not a request.

        I was able to go up and say "No" without any qualms. I think the lady on the HelpDesk might not have felt so free to do this. I have previously given similar replies to new directors, doctors and (medical) consultants. It requires me to be able to quote the official policies. That is part of my job.

        No, I am not a manager. I do not wear a suit to work. I do not even wear a tie. I am the guy who fixes things. Telling people that they cannot connect their own iphone, netbook, fondleslab or USB toy to a corporate network is basic security. If you have no confidential data to look after perhaps the thought of virus, trojan or spyware ridden systems connecting up to your network does not worry you. If 17% of companies have nothing they need to protect, that is up to them.

    • by fyonn (115426) <dave@fyonn.net> on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:32PM (#36204350) Homepage

      yeah, I've heard this thing several times over the last year. all these "innovators" talking about how the next generation of "digital natives" will need to work on their ipads while posting everything on facebook and twitter, but I just don't get it. Why? I don't think the average work environment is so short of people as to be that desperate.

      In fact, my place is in the middle of cutting costs by 40%, so why would they then bend over backwards massively changing internal policy and introducing risk to attract inexperienced, self entitled oiks who by their own admission, want to spend most of the day on facebook rather than actually doing any work?

      Thing is, the company is the one paying the bills, and taking the risks. Where is the business advantage to most businesses to do this? I admit that some more specialised industries that regularly take high skilled graduates may want to do this, but for most industries, i don't see what they'll get out of it?

      dave

    • But ... but ... they only handed me this dated blackberry crap and my Android/iPhone is so much cooler!

    • by PC and Sony Fanboy (1248258) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @05:08PM (#36204596) Journal

      Sorry, no matter what the generation, they should not be allowed to bring more attack vectors and security vulnerabilities in to the workplace.

      They are not special snowflakes, and their personal devices are not necessary for productivity.

      Businesses where mobile devices are useful and helpful should already have their infrastructures designed to handle it, so again Gen Z will make no difference.

      Sure, you tell the salesman who brings in 150k of business a week for your company that he can't use his new toys to keep track of his contacts. He talks to his boss about the fat guy in IT that drains company resources by depriving him of valuable tools. And then reminds his boss that he makes all the sales that actually pay for IT to exist.

      See how long it takes to change policy. Unless you're in non-profit or government, the folks making the money are the folks calling the shots.

      • by Bacon Bits (926911) on Sunday May 22, 2011 @12:09AM (#36206480)

        Sure, you tell the salesman who brings in 150k of business a week for your company that he can't use his new toys to keep track of his contacts. He talks to his boss about the fat guy in IT that drains company resources by depriving him of valuable tools. And then reminds his boss that he makes all the sales that actually pay for IT to exist.

        See how long it takes to change policy. Unless you're in non-profit or government, the folks making the money are the folks calling the shots.

        If this is the kind of response you're getting when you say "no," then you're not very good at the human side of IT.

        In most large organizations I've worked at that have had a functioning IT department, there is a CIO or technology manager whose job it is to listen to both the requests made by employees (especially those made by supervisors and executives) and then listen to the issues presented by the IT personnel who understand the technical issues. This person will then make a decision based on the benefits to the company and the costs and risks (and laws) which impact the business. They then formulate an answer, and present it in such a way that those who disagree with it (either IT or the requester) understand why the decision is what it is and why it must be the way that has been decided. In a well run organization, this IT manager understands that part of the responsibility of IT is to protect the business from employees and to protect the IT employees from compromising situations. In an idea situation, the CEO will back the CIO when questions about technical decisions arise.

        In the situation you present, I would say "Additional services often require additional infrastructure and require additional time to maintain and service. I do not know enough about this specific technology, and I would like to investigate it for you and determine what our business needs will be. It would be irresponsible of me to set this up without fully understanding exactly what it's going to do. I do not want to risk not being able to fix it if it doesn't work or if it has problems in use."

        Usually the response will be "But I just [...]" or "It's only [...]". Some people interpret this as being told what to do by someone who doesn't understand the job. That line of thinking, however, is fueled by ego and leads towards conflict. For my part, I just think they're trying to talk you out of saying "no." People are conditioned to think that if they don't hear "Yes I'll do that immediately" then the answer is "no." I try to answer "I understand why you want this done. I can see the benefits. I just want to make sure that I can do it right so you can actually reap those rewards."

        At this point you're being really reasonable. People are also conditioned to accept a reasonable response, because they know that being unreasonable is likely to harm them more than anything else.

        This gives you something you need: time. Time to build evidence for your case. You can collect the details of what would be required and what the costs would be (including additional infrastructure and additional personnel if there would be a lot of support). Now when you say "no" you have evidence for why your answer is the correct one, and if they say "do it anyway" you can show them what you need (which, again, is reasonable). Without evidence and documentation, you're just butting your ego against the executive, and that doesn't work when you start in a subordinate position. It's very difficult, however, for any person -- no matter how unreasonable -- to continue to flatly argue when you can show them a document which lists the costs in time and money you will require.

        On some occasions, you will meet people who start out butting ego. Regardless of what you say or how reasonable your response, they will not be happy. They will continue to state that their request is really quite simple and extremely important, and will ignore anything you say that doesn't meet with their demands. From your

  • by perpetual pessimist (1245416) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:12PM (#36204208)

    It doesn't matter what generation anyone belongs to -- you'll do things the way the employer wants them done, or you won't be employed.

    Now, are there some new technologies that are in common use in the consumer market that can be used effectively in the business environment? Probably, yes. And businesses will use them if it makes sense in their environment. But they won't use them because the pouty-faced punks with their newly-minted college degrees will throw a hissy-fit if the boss doesn't let them use their personal gadgets.

    Business don't give a damn about their current employees, let alone potential future employees. You'll do as you're told if you want the money... and eating is such an addictive hobby.

    Of course, young people just might start up their own businesses where everyone can stay focused on their iWhatevers all day, and if it's better than the old businesses than the young folks will win. I wouldn't put my money in their stock, though.

    • Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Arterion (941661) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:27PM (#36204312)

      "It doesn't matter what generation anyone belongs to -- you'll do things the way the employer wants them done, or you won't be employed."

      This is not true, nor is it ideal. If a whole generation of people, or even half of that generation, is willing to continually break the rules to use their own devices, employers cannot commence with the wholesale termination of half their labor force. Production would grind to a halt. There would be economic turmoil.

      No, if they're smart, employers will find a way to use the workers own technology as free capital.

      This is not only a shift in technology, but a whole generation of people communicate differently! Every new mode of communication has been disruptive of the previous: post disrupted the courier, telegraph disrupted post, telephone disrupted telegraph, electronic mail disrupted all the previous, and now we have technologies to send visual as well as text along (PDF attachments, for example) that have disrupted hitherto necessarily paper documents -- are we at all surprised that text messaging, twitter, and facebook should disrupt elements of previous forms of communication?

      This is not a question of "what will employers allow" but rather "how do people communicate".

      • Re:I don't think so (Score:4, Interesting)

        by HornWumpus (783565) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:45PM (#36204446)

        The thing about kids is that they are never even half of your workforce and their are usually plenty more where you found the ones you've got now.

        The ones that can't get over facebook make good waiters/waitresses.

        Employers only need to deal with one year of new hires per year.

        On the other hand if a companies business model is 'Facebook/twitter users are stupid attention whores, we separate stupid people from their money.' their might be value in allowing work access to facebook and twitter.

      • by Darinbob (1142669)

        If they're smart, employers would just lay off these layabouts with entitlement issues. If the kiddies can't learn to talk normally, no company should be forced to deal with it. With the baby-boom surge there will be a large employable base of people so that corporations won't be subject to extortion by the self-esteem generation.

      • by DarkOx (621550) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @05:05PM (#36204580) Journal

        This is not true, nor is it ideal. If a whole generation of people, or even half of that generation, is willing to continually break the rules to use their own devices, employers cannot commence with the wholesale termination of half their labor force. Production would grind to a halt. There would be economic turmoil.

        No they won't engage in wholesale termination they will identify a few people they don't like for whatever reason that was not really good enough to justify firing them before, and make a lot of noise like "John Doe" was insubordinate and violated or policy. The rest of you are on notice!

        And the rest of em will realize that the job market is still tough and getting caned because "I could not respect my employers desire for me not to have my IPad on their network is kinda stupid. " Much better to keep collecting that check every two weeks so I can buy toys to play with at home.

    • by St.Creed (853824)

      If you are in a market where qualified technical workers are a dime a dozen, sure, you can try and do it your way. But if you do it like this you will find both recruitment AND retainment increasingly problematic. And HR *will* put the blame on IT, if they're not completely stupid. Given the shortages in qualified IT-workers, this movement towards more personalized devices on the network will have to be accomodated.

      Consider it an opportunity to secure your network for real. Come on: having the security on t

    • by geekoid (135745)

      Bull - Shit.

      If what you say is true, we would still all be wearing suits, working on green screen terminals, and getting printout vis the teletype.

      "I wouldn't put my money in their stock, though."
      too bad, they are going to have the smart people who make this work. And it's not as hard as people think.

  • by tsotha (720379) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:14PM (#36204232)

    This will not happen in the US outside of some niche industries. Companies have too much legal exposure to take the risk some porn site malware is logging credit card info from all the customers the support people helped today.

    I don't know the laws in the UK, but I suspect the same would apply.

  • 1st page: Kids want to use their computers/gadgets at work.
    2nd page: These kids are clueless as to how IT really works and unemployable.

  • Most companies don't allow employee devices on the network for perfectly good reasons: to protect their IP and keep malware off their network. Everyone needs to stop worrying about mollycoddling these whining Gen-Z types and teach them to live in the real world.
    • Most companies don't allow employee devices on the network for perfectly good reasons: to protect their IP and keep malware off their network.

      And companies that support confidential or secure environments, like where I work, don't even allow cell phones with cameras (or other such devices). Some areas/places even require that one leave *all* their personal electronic devices offsite. Yes, the "real world" might be a shock to Gen Z...

      • by PPH (736903)

        Yeah. I used to work t one of those. No personal electronics allowed on the company Intranet. But every exec (and pretty soon, most of the engineering employees) were provided company laptops. Which they all took to visit vendors and customers. And to Starbucks to connect to the free WiFi. And eventually home, where the kids would play with them, download warez and whatnot. Then mom/dad would take the laptop back to work the next day. And our IT dept. never could figure out how all this crap got through our

  • Big businesses are going to have to become more flexible about how IT is provisioned and managed.

    At my job (where I work in the IT department), if they need a device to do their job they're more than welcome, and even encouraged, to ask their director to fund it for them, in which case we'll be happy to provide them with a device we can control on our corporate network that allows them to do the job they were hired for. If they need it to do their job properly, we'll make sure they get it. No need to use their own personal (and potentially insecure and uncontrolled on our network) device they paid for

  • When I hear people saying "the next big thing" is people bringing in their own devices, my first reaction is that those people are assuming that using their personal devices will be "better", because they won't be locked-down the way managed IT hardware is. But I don't see how that's significantly different or better than just giving employees admin/root access to their own machines. At least with the latter, the devices aren't going back and forth between the (hopefully) firewalled/proxied corporate enviro

  • Most of the comments before this one are a good example of the attitude of your average IT person toward this whole "personal equipment" thing.

    Me, I work at a different company, where we decided to treat employees like responsible adults. We make sure people know how to secure their equipment and, if they want (and usually they do), we do it for them. If they want supported equipment, they choose between a wide selection of equipment choices (desktop/laptop, pc/mac/linux); if they want to be responsible f

  • by John Hasler (414242) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:33PM (#36204352) Homepage

    Because "gen Z" is even thicker than "gen Y"?

    they're going to need to get a whole lot more relaxed in general.

    Yes, companies are way too uptight about security. After all, it's not like there have been a lot of breakins or anything.

    BTW what comes after "Gen Z"? Oh. Wait. The Rapture was yesterday. Nevermind.

    • by superwiz (655733)

      what comes after "Gen Z"

      "Gen [", of course.

    • by artor3 (1344997)

      There is no "Gen Z", or "Gen Y" for that matter. Gen X was a one time name, the only one to ever be named with a letter. The next generation is the millennials, sometimes split into early and late millennials, depending on whether you were born before or after 1990. The one after that will probably be named sometime in the next ten to twenty years. Trying to keep the lettering thing going is stupid, obviously short-sighted, and misses the entire reason why Gen X was named as it was.

    • by Darinbob (1142669)

      IT needs to change for Gen Z, because Gen Z is too stupid to change for IT.

  • There are thousands to choose from. If you don't like one, pick another.

    Seriously, these ones have no great insight - they're merely guessing. But what they're guessing is what will make a good story in 2011, not what will happen in years to come - when their guesses have been forgotten, superceeded, revived, altered, discredited and forgotten again. They have no great insight, or knowledge of what's to come and are really only useful for entertainment - such as posting equally ignorant replies to.

  • I am system administrator on my work laptop, but this is something most people will not be able to handle. If any kind of personal data is on these machines, they need to be secured far beyond what a normal user can do. In some industries, e.g. banking, using you own machine will still be completely out of the question. I predict that with the additional data breaches that are to be expected for the near future, most people will instead of on their own devices work on company devices that are even more lock

  • by DarkOx (621550) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @04:46PM (#36204458) Journal

    I work in IT security and I have been told in no uncertain terms what my job is by upper management.

    They don't want to find themselves having to put something in the notes to the financials that our trade secrets have leaked, or that our competitors no our costs. They don't want to be embarrassed and have to apologize for leaking customer data. We are a manufacturing company we sell tools to professionals they expect us to be professions as well as look it. Management does not want to look like Sony.

    I don't get off on saying "no" to people. I really don't but if I let a device be connected to the network I have to be able to know DLP policies are being followed. That means I probably have to have more control over your toys than you want me to have, or you have to settle less than great experiences. No you can't read e-mail on your IPhone APP, you can use Citrix to read it in Notes via your IPhone, and yes that probably is to painful to be worth while. We can't afford a large cached copy of your mail file to be sitting on a device you might lose which *may* be recoverable by its next possessor.

    Your personal laptop, certainly if you let me put our full disk encryption software on it, and our endpoint policy enforcement tools and only IT Security gets root. You won't like that though, and I know it. Trouble is I don't have better solutions.

  • by superwiz (655733)
    The business has to change? Love the name by the way. Generation Z is brilliant. Just add 2 more ZZ's. How about the generation ZZZ has to grow up? No young people of any generation were ever trusted with anything until they earned the trust. This generation is no different.
  • they might have a place where I work. However they are not. See Apple has this one major problem. If the iOs device has an invalid password for a network it was previously connected to it will not prompt the user for the correct password, it will simply keep attempting to connect which in most shops locks out the account. This has caused a great amount of grief with the network people where they now simply tell people - no support. Please buy an Android device or Blackberry to get your mail and/or access th

  • Big businesses are going to have to become more flexible about how IT is provisioned and managed...

    That's been true for years and it still isn't happening. Most companies don't even have their network segmented to make that possible. If they were working toward that end, they'd be separating the data from the network and isolating critical systems. It's not happening in many places I've seen.

  • You've got to love how every article like this out there assumes Generation Z has any clue about technology. Most of the younger (10-20) people I know have less of an idea about what technology is (let alone how to operate it) than I did when I was 5. If external devices are allowed on your network, you are going to be compromised.
    • by Lanteran (1883836)
      Hell, with the idiots out there you're probably going to be compromised anyway. All this is is playing for time.
  • At one of my old workplaces, they provided lockers to the call center folk because all their phones had cameras. They were to put their phones/cameras/ipods in the lockers before they were allowed in to the general building where they could finally be allowed to use the company provided computers. Bringing a camera on site wasn't just grounds for firing; the company would sue you (to get access to your electronic devices to determine if you used them on site).

    ie, Gen Z needs to learn that they don't get
  • Wake up!
    You are a cost center.
    You exist only to enable productive people to produce more efficiently.
    You aren't in charge of anything.
    You work for us.
    Continue to annoy us and you will be replaced.
    Just like the guy in the tool room that used to guard the pin gauges and the hammers like he owned them.
    And the facilities guy who refused to add a 30 Amp circuit or run a Nitrogen line.
    The IT support model that treats everyone like a serf doing word processing is over.
    The design engineers need nonstandard hardware

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FlyingGuy (989135)

      And we will all snicker as you are shown the door for bringing in your latest whiz-bang gadget and all the crud on it that infects the network and puts the whole thing down for a few days.

      I manage change, I don't fight it. I will let your new whiz bang toy onto the network but you can bet your sweet ass that every packet it sends and receives is monitored and recorded and when the network goes down it is your packet trace I will be showing to the CEO and then he will fire your dumb ass when all of the rest

    • by petes_PoV (912422) on Saturday May 21, 2011 @05:50PM (#36204850)
      Riiiight - just like the quality control guys are a cost centre, and the safety standards people, too.

      IT people are the guys who keep the baddies out of the COMPANY network, the one that you want to connect all your little toys to. They're the ones who are charged with producing the most stuff from the least money, which requires common standards so they don't have to spend hours or days trying to work out why some manager didn't/couldn't read the 1-page of instructions with his/her latest trinket and set it up wrong.

      The point is, we all work for the shareholders and they don't care if you want to use your latest little phone to access stuff. They want the lowest cost of operation, the fewest number of lawsuits for data loss and data thefts and they don't want different individuals craching their company on a daily basis just so they can show off some new status symbol.

      • Riiiight - just like the quality control guys are a cost centre, and the safety standards people, too.

        jacks0n may have been overly harsh, but he makes a good point. A friend of mine was in a certain air force, and his officer once addressed the group. Paraphrased, he said that their only job is to deliver missiles, and if you're not delivering missiles you better be making it easier for somebody to do that. IT is the same: your job is to enable by default, and disable only when you absolutely must. Now, whe

    • by vux984 (928602)

      "Many of us users understand every aspect of your network as well or better than you do,
      we just have better things to do."

      Many of you think you do. Most of you don't have a fucking clue about the big picture.

      Part of our job is to provide you the tools you need to be as productive as possible as conveniently as possible.

      The other part is to secure data, and ensure reliability.

      Naturally like any interesting job, these two objectives are at cross purposes. Lean too far either way and the business is sunk.

      "Hey,

... when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. -- Fred Brooks

Working...