I like this article on Google's approach: http://www.cio.com/article/144500/IT_s_Third_Epoch...and_Run...
"On Sarbanes Oxley Gmail IS a violation because S.O. requires the companies themselves to archive all e-mails. So if he leaves and takes his gmail with him than he'll have an archive but the company will be in violation." The article clearly stated he was forwarding his email to gmail- so you are the one that has it wrong, the company would still have a copy. The problem here would not be SO compliance, but rather corporate document retention (destruction) policies where they want to get rid of records as soon as it is legal to do so.
"any IT person in Health Care will tell you IM programs are a HIPAA violation because they allow for encrypted transfer of files" Do you mean unencrypted? Regardless- I can think of 100 ways to transfer an unencrypted file. Why single out IM, which has many useful properties.
Here's what's happening in the real world- the corporate network/desktop that is overly locked down gets circumvented. People bring in laptops and use cell modems, people use their phones, people install virtual machines.
Generally you will find that suck policies come from HR and IT people aren't particularly enthusiastic about them either.
On Gmail the question was "why were they banning Gmail" not was his personal use of gmail a violation so the point still stands (though I'll admit I read it wrong)
Finally, if your security gets circumvented than your security is flawed. Any IT department that chooses not to implement security on the argument that it will inevitably get circumvented probably needs to re-evaluate how they're handling things.
What I mean by circumvent is that if you tell an employee they can't use Facebook during breaks, they'll whip out their phone and use Facebook. If you tell a developer they can't use an IDE they like, they'll buy their own.
1) Another poster has already responded to your Gmail comment; as he pointed out, I was forwarding mail, not deleting it, so the company still had all my mail.
2) Regarding the use of IM at the hospital: This would be a sensible explanation if the hospital also blocked all other unencrypted communication. They do not. Here is the senselessness of this policy: They allow people to use Gmail but disable the chat portion of Gmail; the only reason for this is to stop them from goofing off.
Having said that, again, in several places I've worked where HIPAA is a constant presence, it hasn't killed IM. It's a dealbreaker for a lot of financials though.
This could go either way, actually. Unencrypted transfer of files is obviously risky and if it's through a 3rd party provider (AOL, GTalk, etc.) then there is a risk of confidential medical information being intercepted.
Alternatively, maybe there needs to be internal records of who has sent or received which files. Encrypting files makes it harder for the administration to know who has what.
I'm leaning towards the first explanation of the danger of unencrypted file exchange, but I could be wrong.
But this author is a tool.
First, anyone whose dealt with consumers in general knows that most computer users get themselves into trouble doing benign things. For example, in my experience, most people get malware while searching for pictures on Google. They find the picture they want, click on it and before you know it they're infected. So how trustworthy they are isn't really an issue.
Second he dramatically misunderstands the laws he quotes. On Sarbanes Oxley Gmail IS a violation because S.O. requires the companies themselves to archive all e-mails. So if he leaves and takes his gmail with him than he'll have an archive but the company will be in violation. As for his fiance, the Medical Professional that can't use IM, any IT person in Health Care will tell you IM programs are a HIPAA violation because they allow for encrypted transfer of files and hence represent a risk to medical records (I work for a mental health organization and we have to scan at our firewall for files going out and have protection software to prevent certain files from being copied to flash drives)
I guess what I'm saying is there are certainly IT people who take security too far. But, as this writer proves, there are also users who ask for too much.