"cathy" <cwells21@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qb7hg2hvlqgjd8n31l6f8v6fl2nn0d3pu3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:12:57 -0600, "Ed Sheehan"
> <NOedsSPAM@xmission.com> wrote:
>
>>Get a camera phone. Drill out the camera aperture in front of the HR
>>director. Fill it with epoxy. Get a liability waiver from HR. Enjoy
>>bluetoof.
>>
> Sorry, won't work. It isn't a HR issue, it's Security. No camera
> phones, period, no exceptions. Your suggestion has been tried, and
> failed.

There is an overwhelming compulsion to suggest that you try reasoning with
them, but if they could be reasoned with, you wouldn't have this situation
in the first place. I work for a company that is very sensitive about these
things and required people to go through a lengthy bureaucratic procedure to
get a camera pass if they had a camera on the premises. Finally they
realized how foolish all this looked, and they changed their policy to say
you couldn't use a camera for any non-management-approved purposes. Your
company will likely change their rules the day the CEO decides he needs
Bluetooth on his phone. Do you want to tell us the name of your company so
we can start ridiculing them here, in the hopes that word of this public
ridicule will get back to them?