Current examples of everyday web-based services that are now finding themselves in the envelope of the cloud computing description are services such as GMail.

Now with virtualisation overtaking the workplace, the hardware idea from the past becomes software, and software-as-a-service (SaaS) and platform-as-a-service (PaaS) seems like the logical next step: desktop machines, laptops, netbooks and other dedicated remote access clients such as smartphones provide access to the data externally, but everything else is in the server room and data center. Sounds like every network and system administrator’s maintenance dream right? But some are a little critical of the purported promised land of networked computing.

Richard Stallman, Founder of the Free Software Foundation, said recently likened cloud computing to a trap and that users are leaving their data and privacy in the hands of companies they do not control and they cannot be guaranteed data integrity or user privacy. “Do your own computing on your own computer with your copy of a freedom-respecting program. If you use a proprietary program or somebody else’s Web server, you’re defenseless. You’re putty in the hands of whoever developed that software,” he said.

Proponents of cloud computing, such as Google, say that cloud computing has many benefits. They believe that netbooks used for cloud computing are secure as third-party programs cannot be installed, which means viruses and spyware will have more difficulty in making life difficult for users.

However the path to future computing runs one thing is for sure, aspects of cloud computing today are here to stay.

Paul Ducklin, head of technology in the Asia Pacific for computer security firm Sophos, said companies were “damned if [they] do and damned if [they] don’t” restrict access to popular sites like Facebook and Twitter.

But he told an audience at the National Identity Crime Symposium in Brisbane this week there were more benefits in allowing staff to access the sites than than there were drawbacks.

“There are many organisations wanting to use social networking services like Facebook, like Twitter, to tell their constituents stuff about themselves,” he said.

“So to then go block social networking entirely at work, it’s awfully hypocritical of the company to say ‘tell your friends to come look at our social media page, but you can’t do it’.”

In his talk, entitled Social networking in the office space from the office computer – is it a threat?, Mr Ducklin said while there were inherent risks for businesses that allowed staff to use social networking, the risks existed whether or not they were allowed to access the sites at work as they would still use them when they got home.

“If they’re using social media sites, one of the things they’re invariably going to talk about is what sort of day they had, how they got on with so-and-so, what they’re working on with the best will in the world,” he said.

“By allowing people controlled access to social media sites under reasonable guidelines and reviewing those regularly, you’re actually helping the employee to do the right thing at work and to go home and continue to do the right thing there.”

Chamber of Commerce and Industry Queensland policy manager Nick Behrens said it was up to individual businesses to decide whether it was appropriate to allow work site access to the websites.

“The Chamber itself allows employees to access Facebook and other sites, however we encourage responsible usage,” he said.

“At the end of the day, businesses need to ensure the usage is reasonable, doesn’t negatively impact on productivity and that whatever job the employee is charged with doing gets done.”

Mr Behrens said it was productivity and not the risk that sensitive information could be leaked that drove most business opposition to social networking use.

“Initially, when these social networking sites came out, there was usage by employees and then a number of companies started to crack down on it because it was starting to compromise workplace productivity,” he said.

“And now, it’s come full circle and it’s really seen as a performance management issue more than anything else and if you’re on the ball, hopefully it won’t be a problem.”

But Mr Ducklin said productivity should not be used as an excuse to restrict employee access to the sites.

“Let’s face it – if someone is a time-waster, they’ll find some way of wasting time,” Mr Ducklin said.

“It doesn’t really matter if it’s Facebook or Sudoku.”

Two of the largest employers in Brisbane are the Queensland Government and Brisbane City Council.

A government spokeswoman said most public servants had their access blocked, although that varied from office to office, with seven departments blocking access and four allowing it.

However, she said public service commissioner Bruce Wilson was currently undertaking an all-of-government review to standardise policy.

Brisbane City Council blocks its employees from using a variety of sites, including Facebook and YouTube.

Finance and Administration Chairman Adrian Schrinner said social media websites used up massive amounts of bandwidth and would be a financial burden to the council if all its 9000 staff had access.

“Limiting access to social media sites to those employees that actually need them to perform their job ensures we’re delivering better value for Brisbane ratepayers,” he said.

Information Source smh.com.au