Finished your budget? Did you add money for a corporate instant
messaging (IM) server to wean your users away from public IM client
software? Is it too late to add that?
Back in March we talked about keeping your public interface (sales and
support) IM connections on public products (AOL, Yahoo, MSN, etc.) but
using a separate system for use internally. Then put a really strong
firewall between the two and keep your fingers crossed.
Want to get your budget bumped enough to add the IM servers you need?
Mention to executives how "secrets" discovered by employees will be able
to reach media outlets via IM with absolutely no audit trail whatsoever.
On the other hand, if you work for an Enron-type weasel factory skimming
money with both hands, maybe you want an easy way to leak the invoice
from the "gentlemen's" club for a vice president' birthday. Many of our
401K balances would be better off if we'd gotten a tip or three from
drowning ships as employees noticed managers bailing out.
Would I go so far as to limit outside IM clients to a DMZ only available
for sales and tech support? I think I would. Or at least host internal
IM on a server separate from any public IM access.
With your own IM server for use internally, you can keep IM
conversations in the archive. Those who work in regulated industries
know that all electronic communications must be kept for auditors.
E-mail and Notes and knowledge management systems make archiving easy,
but IM makes it tough. If you have a corporate IM system and don't keep
archives, you will be in trouble.
On the other hand, if you let employees use external IM systems for
internal communications, you open a huge hole in your company secret
firewall. Do you want a disgruntled employee to keep running
conversations with outside regulators? How about with competitors,
offering your secrets as an interview to work for the new company?
Hello, rock and hard place. But if you're in a public company, push your
management toward internal IM servers. I'd worry less about what will be
revealed in some potential future audit than I worry about inside
information going out the IM door on a regular basis.
James
