There is an argument to be made for less restrictive IT rules. As someone who sets the policy for an IT department I tend to allow any of the normal sites on the theory of "people with computers should be trust worthy already and those people have lunch breaks so why not trust them with access to sites like Facebook or Myspace (at least until it's abused)"

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.