Regarding working outside of Tech, In my pre-HiTech days I worked in a very large organisation where the all the practices you mentioned were strictly enforced. As your example has shown, these policies are in place for good reason. Having said that, I do think of them as taking the easiest solution instead of the best solution and find it morally analogous to using collective punishment on an entire population in order to deter a few bad apples.
I do realise this is the reality in many organisations (and, mind you, also inside the Tech industry) as it is much cheaper to implement. My own reaction was to stop working in a company that operates according to a philosophy I don't agree with and instead create an environment that operates from a philosophy I can relate to (basically one where people are trusted and do what is best for the company because that's what they love doing rather than out of fear of what will happen if they don't).
You say this is not an option for some, and you are right (though I think many people sell themselves short in terms of what they think they can do to start changing the situation) and I can imagine situations where you could argue that the "indecency" of breaking workplace policies is far less than the "indecency" of the policies that caused them in the first place.
However, all the above is a bit beside the point, as my main objection was from a marketing perspective. To take it to the extreme, if I manufacture freezers, I think you'll agree that mentioning in the advertising campaign that you can use them to make icicles which are the perfect murder weapon would not be very helpful to the public image of the company or product. If that is the major thing that product is suitable for, and there's a large target market then it becomes a moral discussion, but I don't think circumventing office policies is the main selling point of the device and therefore don't think mentioning it as the first feature is helpful.
I do realise this is the reality in many organisations (and, mind you, also inside the Tech industry) as it is much cheaper to implement. My own reaction was to stop working in a company that operates according to a philosophy I don't agree with and instead create an environment that operates from a philosophy I can relate to (basically one where people are trusted and do what is best for the company because that's what they love doing rather than out of fear of what will happen if they don't).
You say this is not an option for some, and you are right (though I think many people sell themselves short in terms of what they think they can do to start changing the situation) and I can imagine situations where you could argue that the "indecency" of breaking workplace policies is far less than the "indecency" of the policies that caused them in the first place.
However, all the above is a bit beside the point, as my main objection was from a marketing perspective. To take it to the extreme, if I manufacture freezers, I think you'll agree that mentioning in the advertising campaign that you can use them to make icicles which are the perfect murder weapon would not be very helpful to the public image of the company or product. If that is the major thing that product is suitable for, and there's a large target market then it becomes a moral discussion, but I don't think circumventing office policies is the main selling point of the device and therefore don't think mentioning it as the first feature is helpful.
Then again, I could be mistaken :)