Don't work for a company that monitors it's own IT equipment?
Monitoring the equipment is to ensure it's working properly, as well as to guard against employees misusing company equipment by installing toolbars and apps that have no business purpose (which ultimately leads to mis-performing equipment, and lost productivity).
I don't think I'd want to work for a company like that - the IT equipment would be in shambles, borderline unusable.
I should not need to explain that you can monitor installed applications without reading the contents of someone's gmail tab.
You should not be using gmail while being paid to do work on someone's equipment.
A parallel would be if your company used GMail for business purposes. You log into your personal Gmail account instead, and stay logged in. The company needs to gain access to an email from a customer, so they open Gmail on your computer - but discover you are logged into your personal account and can clearly see you have spent your afternoon sending personal emails... not working.
Another parallel would be if you were hired to drive a bus route, but decided to use the company owned bus to go shopping instead. You are misusing company equipment, and if they discover that via a typical investigation (such as checking your bus' GPS location), then they have done nothing wrong.
I don't see how any reasonable person could argue that this man's case was a clear violation of his privacy. This is a typical case of a person misusing equipment/breaking the rules, then getting upset that he was caught.
... in a completely benign way that you might expect of a real human being, not a slave or serf.
No reasonable person can advocate in good faith that employees should actively ignore workplace policies and rules, because they're "real human beings"... and further, that there should be no consequences for these deliberate actions.
Also less effective. Example: Shadow IT exists for a reason, and that reason is not some variation of sticking it to the man.
Don't abuse company owned equipment, and don't use company owned equipment for personal reasons (especially during work hours) is certainly not an "arbitrary, illogical and backwards" policy.
> Also less effective
If you truly believe an IT department ensuring their systems are maintained properly and function as they should is "less effective" than just allowing chaos... I'm not sure what to say really.
> Shadow IT exists for a reason
Have you worked at a company which had different departments all using whatever they wanted? It's a nightmare, and not just from an IT perspective. Nothing is compatible with each other... transferring from one department to another results in a slew of new applications and practices to learn (and which are not necessarily better)... and when IT does need to step in and fix this new system a bunch of non-IT department staff cobbled together... it gets even worse. Soon these departments complain to the IT department when their "shadow IT" system breaks down and demand it be fixed promptly. It's not a net good for any company.
> Nobody follows all the rules all the time, and those that do are generally seen by the rest of society as stodgy and inflexible
Don't be ridiculous. It's not your property - you don't get to do whatever you want with it. It's really, really simple.
It's a bloody computer, not a backhoe. I know precisely nobody who has a computer at work that doesn't at least check their mail on it.
Why companies feel they have to treat their employees as serfs in this matter is beyond my comprehension. Nor do I understand the mindset that treats a mail check as "abuse".
Have you worked at a company which had different departments all using whatever they wanted?
Have you ever worked at a company which had an IT department that was so bureaucratic and slow moving that it prevented people getting actual work done? Your diatribe ignores the reason shadow IT springs up - because the "official" IT isn't doing their job and providing decent services.
I've been on both sides of this. The old quote "the harder you squeeze, the more slip through your fingers" applies. Shadow IT means that things are being provisioned without official approval, not that there's a policy allowing random things to be provisioned without approval.
OTOH there are problems with salespeople communicating with customers on their private emails, like, ugh, the director of the CIA who was recently caught by a teenager.
It's not your property, don't abuse it. It's really, really simple.
No, it is not. Where is the line between use and abuse?
If I install Notepad++ because it allows me to work faster, am I using or abusing the computer?
What if I install Firefox because some suppliers' site doesn't work in the company-provided IE8 anymore?
What if I install Dell's ActiveX control to download their drivers?
What if I disable the company-installed Flash Player because I feel safer without it?
What if I install NoScript or Flashblock using a company-provided Firefox install?
What if I look up my GP's phone number using a work computer because I need a consult for my back issues? Should I take sick leave just so I can call my GP?
I've worked in IT support, and the general rule among those companies was this: if employees have local administrator rights, they are expected to manage their system themselves. So all of the above would fall under "use" where I've worked. If your employees cannot be trusted to manage their machine, why do they have administrator rights in the first place?
This, and all of your examples, would be considered abuse if your corporate policy stated you were not allowed to install any software without IT's permission. It is that simple, really.
> if employees have local administrator rights, they are expected to manage their system themselves
This sort of thing really only occurs at small businesses with little-to-no internal IT support, or with very special cases (such as a developer, which would have special approvals by the company to do so).
> If your employees cannot be trusted to manage their machine, why do they have administrator rights in the first place
Well, they shouldn't, and they don't at most companies.
In the end, you signed a usage agreement. If you deliberately break that agreement, don't be surprised by the consequences.
Except that two of my examples did not involve installing anything.
Well in that case any sane person would try to avoid working for a company with such draconian and controlling policies.