> Really think about the user. Its they who make computers and the internet worth bothering with.
Were the IT dept. folks thinking about the user, they would never have blocked Google Docs in the first place. People want to use tool X, so the job of university IT is to ensure they are able to use tool X. They did exactly the opposite.
Also, solutions proposed by GP are reasonable ways to reduce / mitigate the risk of phishing without inconveniencing users too much.
Most bureaucratic IT departments (i.e. big corps, govs, schools) tend to be more about the reduction of work for the IT department and less about the best solutions for the users.
Since IT departments are generally regarded as cost centres & therefore they are usually either understaffed or expected to keep costs to the absolute minimum by upper management this is hardly surprising.
In this particular case, the department is in a double bind: the success of phishing emails threatens the ability of the university to send email to many other major hosts on the net. If you sat the users down and asked them which they need more, a reliable email to people outside the university or access to Google Docs, then the decision isn't so clear cut all of a sudden is it?
> If you sat the users down and asked them which they need more, a reliable email to people outside the university or access to Google Docs, then the decision isn't so clear cut all of a sudden is it?
But it's a false dichotomy: there are solutions that preserve both.
Were the IT dept. folks thinking about the user, they would never have blocked Google Docs in the first place. People want to use tool X, so the job of university IT is to ensure they are able to use tool X. They did exactly the opposite.
Also, solutions proposed by GP are reasonable ways to reduce / mitigate the risk of phishing without inconveniencing users too much.