Shift happens video
Task
Watch this video carefully a second time, and identify five (5) examples of 'shifts' or trends that can have an impact on how individuals behave as a digital citizens. Then outline (in @ 400 words) how you believe these behaviours can impact on the need for, and development of, information policy in organisations to address these behaviours. You may wish to explore these from either a user/customer perspective or employee/employer perspective, or a combination of both, and you may wish to consider this task within the specific context of your own library and/or organisation, or you can address this task in general terms.
95% of all songs downloaded last year weren’t paid for
Piracy of music is illegal and an organisation can be prosecuted if it found to be participating in the act of it. As a result of this it is very important that an information policy is developed to clearly outline that illegal downloading is unacceptable behaviour to stop possible breaches of the law happening within library walls from both library employees and library customers.
The following article which was in the online edition of the Sydney Morning Herald Newspaper on the 28th November 2011 mentions how Internet Service Providers are now reporting possible piracy to policy to police after 5 suspect illegal downloads are undertaken.
Telcos volunteer to help police piracy
Karl Quinn and Ben Grubb
November 28, 2011
Australian internet users face an increased risk of prosecution if they pirate online, with five large ISPs proposing to act on suspected infringement notices provided to them from rights holders by passing on the notices to users and, in the most extreme circumstances, disclosing the details of alleged pirates.
Under a proposal released by telco industry body the Communications Alliance, users will receive an "education notice" if they are suspected of pirating content like movies. If they persist, they will be issued with up to three warning notices within a 12-month period. If a user continues to pirate content after that, they would then face the prospect of having their details passed on to copyright holders, allowing them to institute legal action.
A spokesman for federal Communications Minister Stephen Conroy welcomed "the industry working towards a solution to the issue of piracy" and said the government had been "encouraging the parties to work together for some time because it is important any proposed solution is supported by both ISPs and the content industries".
The Communications Alliance claims the experience in France — which employs a three-strikes policy at the end of which persistent infringers are disconnected from the internet — shows that "only 0.1 per cent of users who receive a first notice will continue their activities and receive a third notice".
"The majority of infringers are casual infringers, not hard core," said Communications Alliance CEO John Stanton. "Once they know that their activity can be detected, and has been, we think they'll take the opportunity to change their behavior."
ISPs will not monitor user connections but will rely on rights holders sending them notices of suspected infringements they have detected by monitoring file sharing networks for illegal uploading and downloading.
To get user details, copyright holders will need to apply for a court order, as they are required to now.
The Australian ISPs that have agreed to help in policing infringements are Telstra BigPond, Optus, iiNet, iPrimus and Internode.
The proposal, which the Communications Alliance wants trialled for an 18-month period, represents a major reversal of tactics by the ISPs in the copyright wars.
The about-face comes just days before the High Court is due to hear an appeal by The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft (AFACT), which represents many of the largest entertainment industry rights holders in Australia, against a Federal Court judgment in February that found telco iiNet was not responsible for copyright infringement by its clients.
But if the proposal was meant to dissuade the rights holders from pursuing their case it has failed. In a statement, AFACT said it was "focused" on the High Court appeal this week and would "not be commenting on anything but the case at this time". The group wants iiNet to be held entirely accountable for policing copyright infringements on its network.
Foxtel was unimpressed, damning the proposal as "self serving, defective and not in the spirit of our agreed approach".
ISP iiNet's chief regulatory officer Steve Dalby was blunt about the Communications Alliance plan not representing an "agreement". He said it may not come into effect if there was not enough support for it. "It's a proposal," Mr Dalby said. "There is no 'date of effect'. If there is insufficient support, it'll wither on the vine."
He said the proposal would test the claim rights holders had been promoting that about 70 per cent of people notified would stop infringing after their first or second notice.
"If 70 per cent of infringements cease, it would be a very cheap way of reducing their claimed losses of $900 million per annum. A great investment. It does have costs for ISPs, however, with no balancing benefits flowing to them."
He added that to get user details copyright holders would need to get a court order. "That hasn't changed.
"They will have to convince a Federal Court magistrate or similar that the ISP should be ordered to disclose customer details," Mr Dalby said.
Unlike the French scheme, the proposal does not provide for termination of consumers' internet accounts, nor for any punitive sanctions to be imposed on customers by ISPs. It also gives consumers the right to appeal if they receive a notice but believe they have not done anything improper.
“We believe the notice scheme can greatly reduce online copyright infringement in Australia, while protecting consumer rights, educating consumers about how to access legal online content and helping rights holders to protect their rights,” the alliance's John Stanton said.
He added that it was important for rights holders to ensure that consumers had access to "legal and affordable content" online, to "reduce the motivation to source content in ways that might be illegal".
Meanwhile, the Movie Rights Group, which emerged last month with plans to take legal action against people who had illegally downloaded the film Kill The Irishman, has gone to ground following an investigation by Fairfax that revealed the links of its owners, Gold Coast brothers Matthew and Richard Clapham, to the porn industry.
The group’s website is no longer functional, and Theresa Lloyd, of Brisbane firm Lloyds Solicitors, said: "We no longer have any association with Movie Rights
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/telcos-volunteer-to-help-police-piracy-20111127-1o1hc.html#ixzz1kA1xN3qx
Among larger US companies 17% have disciplined an employee for violating blogg or message board policies.
It is important that companies have an information policy in place to ensure the integrity of their organisation. Social media is a wonderful tool for getting the message across to people however organisations want to be sure that its employees are sending people positive messages about the organisation and are not misrepresenting them in any way that would cause damage to the organisations public image.
If there is an acceptable use policy in place than employees can be discipled or sacked when they have been found to violate its code.
The following is an article from HC online which outlines how important an organisations social media policy is when needing to disipline employees for incorrect use.
Employee fired for Facebook comments: Spotlight on social media policy Part I
The outcome of a recent Fair Work Australia (FWA) decision has highlighted the importance of maintaining and consistently reviewing internal social media policies.
FWA made the decision in Glen Stutsel v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [December 2011] to reinstate the employment of an employee who had been dismissed for making comments about his managers on his Facebook profile.
Glen Stutsel had been employed as a truck driver by logistics company Linfox, and was fired in May 2011 after management became aware of comments he had made online which criticised his managers.
However, FWA found that Stutsel had made the comments in a forum which he held to be private – he had set up his Facebook profile with the maximum security settings.
FWA found that, for this reason, the employee believed he could privately and candidly interact with his friends.
While the ombudsman agreed the employee’s comments were “foolish”, it was found that the comments were not intended for public display, and therefore there were no valid grounds for termination. As a result, his employment was ordered to be reinstated.
According to Harriet Stacey, co-founder and principal of Wise Workplace Investigations, many employers don't realise that social media policies are not a ‘set and forget’ policy, and must comprehensively spell out what is acceptable online conduct. Simply banning social media usage in the workplace is insufficient, as comments made outside of work can be just as detrimental and damaging to an organisation’s reputation.
While many workplace policies are seldom referred to – common sense and practical problem solving are sufficient to resolve most issues – social media is one policy area that regularly comes into play when things get complicated.
“In times of rapid change, as we are seeing with the development of social media, it is critical to stay ahead of the game. You must determine what is OK and what is not OK for your organisation - and put it in writing,” Stacey said.
In the recent case of Damien O'Keefe v Williams Muir's Pty Ltd T/A Troy Williams The Good Guys [2011] FWA 5311 (August 11, 2011) an unfair dismissal application was dismissed in part because of the strong policies held by the Good Guys company.
The employee had been sacked for serious misconduct after posting derogatory comments about the employer on his Facebook profile.
Despite the employee making the comments on a personal computer outside of work hours, the court found in favour of the Good Guys, largely because the company had a clear and comprehensive employee handbook covering the way staff should communicate with each other as well as spelling out firm bullying and harassment policies.
Jackson, Swine flu and Barack Obama have been this years top subjects for malware distributing emails/ 90% of the 200 billion emails sent every day are spam.
It is important that your organisations social media policy outlines what social networking websites employees have access to. The organisation needs to look at which sites may pose the biggest threat to your organisation by letting in damaging computer viruses. Ways in which your company can limit potential virus spread is stopping employees being sent personal emails to their work email address and limiting their use of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.
It would also be of benefit for the library to continually monitor any common viruses that are doing the rounds and warn its customers not to open any emails from people whom people they do not know or of which the email title looks a bit suspicious.
The mobile device will be the world’s primary connection tool to the Internet in 2020
Most people now have a mobile phone which is capable of accessing the internet. As these devices are easily portable most employees will be bringing them to work. It is important that the organisation has a social media policy in place to let employees know when it is acceptable to use these devices for personal use. Doing this will help to prevent employees wasting work time on these devices?
This article titled “Social Media and Mobile use Policies” found on a Blog called Float discuses this point.
Written by Gary Woodill on October 20, 2011|
David Strom, business channels editor for ReadWriteWeb (RWW) has written two thoughtful posts on the issue of social media and mobile devices in the workplace. In his most recent post on the subject, he discusses policies on bringing your own mobile devices to work, and how they should be used. Because they will likely be used for social media, then you also need a social media policy, the subject of an earlier post.
Companies face a dilemma over employees bringing their mobile devices to work. Do you restrict their use, in the name of security and distraction from working? If so, employees will go off and have a “social media break” instead of a smoke break, just outside their building. If you ban mobile devices in the workplace, and issue company owned smartphones or tablets, the company is facing a huge expense. So, the points made in David Strom’s post are well worth reading.
If you haven’t formulated policies in this area, you may want to check out David’s post on social media policy, published in May. He points to another article by Chris Boudreaux who has compiled a list of 170 templates for social media policies in organizations. If you need to address this important topic in your workplace, these three posts are a great place to start
No comments:
Post a Comment