New IT desktop setting: Is this common?

[torpid]

Obviously in the grand scheme of things this is a minor footnote at best.

Here at my work they just instated a new change to our workstations... the background image on all of our desktops is set to the same generic picture. Ostensibly, you can't change it because the options to change it are disabled in the desktop properties. In reality you can change the setting in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System

Of course, once you do, it eventually gets set back because of the regular group policy scan (every 30 min or so).

I've never seen this sort of policy before. Is this unusual? I feel it is a bit overboard just thinking about how much money we have wasted just planning and installing this change. As far as I know there have been no major incidents with inappropriate images or anything.

 

[Viper GTS]

They force your desktop background but they let you modify the registry?

That's actually pretty funny.



Viper GTS

 

[bearxor]

No, it is not unusual. Just because there haven't been major incidents or anything doesn't mean that there won't be, and this is just a precaution. We don't do it at our paper, but several sister papers do. We only have about 40 Windows machines though, compared to about 130 Macs.

You could always replace the background image with your image and name it the same thing, if you can modify the directory it's in. That would get around it. I'm assuming the wallpaper isn't downloaded every time you log in, but it could be off a network share.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is though. It's just wallpaper. It can't be that important.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: torpid
I've never seen this sort of policy before. Is this unusual? I feel it is a bit overboard just thinking about how much money we have wasted just planning and installing this change. As far as I know there have been no major incidents with inappropriate images or anything.

The cost was probably negligible, and they probably did it for a reason (i.e. possibly inappropriate wallpapers). Kind of annoying that they set it to a picture though, I prefer a plain colored background (the default blue color of the Windows Classic theme)

 

[lokiju]

Well they're just pointing to a specific image.

You can just find that specific image and then replace it with any other image by just renaming it to the predefined one.

 

[HannibalX]

OP must work in a call center.

 

[torpid]

The image is on a network drive and I don't have access to it.

mugs, I suppose if you assume they already had the image it could be negligible. I assumed that they went to the trouble of finding or, worse, creating an image just for this purpose. My reason is that it has some text inside of the image describing my workplace.

I don't work in a call center. I'm a programmer. Thus, I am slowly conceiving the optimal program to put back wallpaper of my choice. Should it be a windows service or a batch program that runs every now and again through scheduler? Decisions, decisions.

 

[Jeff7181]

I think it's funny when employees think the computer at their desk is theirs and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If the company paid for it, it's the company's computer and they have every right to dictate what you can and can't do with it, as well as the network connection.

Wallpapers like this might not look so good to a client or potential client passing by on a tour of the building...

 

[torpid]

I never said they don't have a right to do it, only that I find it a bit overboard. Inappropriate wallpaper is no different than inappropriate pictures in frames. They aren't currently walking around and removing all of those. Though someone did remove all the sponges and dish soap in the kitchen earlier this week.

 

[clamum]

Originally posted by: torpid
Thus, I am slowly conceiving the optimal program to put back wallpaper of my choice. Should it be a windows service or a batch program that runs every now and again through scheduler? Decisions, decisions.

Haha, I was thinkin the same thing. I'd probably write a Windows service to do it.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: torpid
I feel it is a bit overboard just thinking about how much money we have wasted just planning and installing this change.

Probably not nearly as much as you are going to waste trying to find a way around it. Im assuming because you are a programmer they granted you local admin rights which would be why you can edit the reg. If they find out that you are working around the GP they can close your loophole if they care. Odds are they don't, just some one somewhere with some pull either saw another organization doing it or someone did in fact post an inappropriate wall paper and the policy has a trickle down effect to everyone.

 

[TheKub]

Originally posted by: torpid
I never said they don't have a right to do it, only that I find it a bit overboard. Inappropriate wallpaper is no different than inappropriate pictures in frames. They aren't currently walking around and removing all of those.

If someone framed an inappropriate photo on their desk and someone complained you can bet that a new office policy forbidding pictures could come down the pipe.

Originally posted by: torpid
My reason is that it has some text inside of the image describing my workplace.

What do you mean by work place? Like physical address or workstation identification (PC name\ip\etc)?

 

[sdifox]

Why would anyone care what their desktop looks like. I bet for most people the only times they see the desktop is startup and shutdown.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: sdifox
Why would anyone care what their desktop looks like. I bet for most people the only times they see the desktop is startup and shutdown.

Yup... staring at the desktop means you're not working.

 

[KeithTalent]

They did this at my work quite a while ago. To be honest the only time I'm looking at my desktop is when I'm booting up or shutting down, ao I really couldn't care less.

KT

 

[torpid]

I use windows+d about 50 times a day so I see it a lot more often I guess.

Anyway apparently this is not uncommon so that answers the question. We have a new person in charge so hopefully this is not a harbinger of draconian IT policies to come.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
They force your desktop background but they let you modify the registry?

That's actually pretty funny.



Viper GTS

Agreed...:laugh:

 

[PKPunk]

Originally posted by: ITJunkie

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
They force your desktop background but they let you modify the registry?

That's actually pretty funny.



Viper GTS

Agreed...:laugh:

seriously

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: torpid
Obviously in the grand scheme of things this is a minor footnote at best.

Here at my work they just instated a new change to our workstations... the background image on all of our desktops is set to the same generic picture. Ostensibly, you can't change it because the options to change it are disabled in the desktop properties. In reality you can change the setting in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System

Of course, once you do, it eventually gets set back because of the regular group policy scan (every 30 min or so).

I've never seen this sort of policy before. Is this unusual? I feel it is a bit overboard just thinking about how much money we have wasted just planning and installing this change. As far as I know there have been no major incidents with inappropriate images or anything.

It doesn't take much planning at all, there are simply templates you just set up and deploy.

Most will give up modifying things that keep reverting back, allowing for registry edits allows the user to install more things without IS intervention.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
They force your desktop background but they let you modify the registry?

That's actually pretty funny.



Viper GTS

this.

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I think it's funny when employees think the computer at their desk is theirs and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If the company paid for it, it's the company's computer and they have every right to dictate what you can and can't do with it, as well as the network connection.

Wallpapers like this might not look so good to a client or potential client passing by on a tour of the building...

Tell me about it. We used to pretty much let people do whatever, save mp3s to the network, install whatever they wanted, play quake at lunch... now corporate policies + SOX have us locking EVERYTHING down, and people are getting pissed. They forget the computers aren't theirs, and there could be legal liability.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: torpid
Obviously in the grand scheme of things this is a minor footnote at best.

Here at my work they just instated a new change to our workstations... the background image on all of our desktops is set to the same generic picture. Ostensibly, you can't change it because the options to change it are disabled in the desktop properties. In reality you can change the setting in HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System

Of course, once you do, it eventually gets set back because of the regular group policy scan (every 30 min or so).

I've never seen this sort of policy before. Is this unusual? I feel it is a bit overboard just thinking about how much money we have wasted just planning and installing this change. As far as I know there have been no major incidents with inappropriate images or anything.

The only one wasting the company's money is YOU. Instead of fvcking around with your desktop background, you should be doing what the company PAID you to do. Which I'm sure is not "thinking about how much effort it took to make this change" and to "try and change the background back."

And let me tell you, it takes 2 seconds to implement this group policy. So again, quit fvcking around and get back to work.

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
And let me tell you, it takes 2 seconds to implement this group policy.

I really want to agree with you here, and I do at least on the fact that the policy itself takes 2 seconds to implement, but if you add up the time it took for the higher ups to have meetings about it, it does cost a lot to make just about any change.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

The only one wasting the company's money is YOU. Instead of fvcking around with your desktop background, you should be doing what the company PAID you to do. Which I'm sure is not "thinking about how much effort it took to make this change" and to "try and change the background back."

And let me tell you, it takes 2 seconds to implement this group policy. So again, quit fvcking around and get back to work.

Let me tell YOU, it takes two seconds to change a desktop background. Since his IT management are IT Nazis, it now takes more time. So, shut it IT Nazi.


What's next, no more WIN-R, or alt-tab?

 

[RandomFool]

Originally posted by: Joemonkey

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
I think it's funny when employees think the computer at their desk is theirs and they should be able to do whatever they want with it. If the company paid for it, it's the company's computer and they have every right to dictate what you can and can't do with it, as well as the network connection.

Wallpapers like this might not look so good to a client or potential client passing by on a tour of the building...

Tell me about it. We used to pretty much let people do whatever, save mp3s to the network, install whatever they wanted, play quake at lunch... now corporate policies + SOX have us locking EVERYTHING down, and people are getting pissed. They forget the computers aren't theirs, and there could be legal liability.

Heh. When I was rolling out new PCs to different depts, I discovered that one guy had a gig of mp3 saved on his old computer and he wanted them transferred to the new one. When I mentioned it to my boss he said we had to transfer them over because the guy was the director of the dept. It was a remote site and for some reason we couldn't transfer over the network so I ended up moving them all over with an external Zip 100 drive.