Earlier quoted context omitted.
If your users have to resort to this they are not getting the appropriate support they need. If your users are productive, chances are so is the company that pays both your salaries. If your users have to fight their infrastructure people to get their jobs done, you company will fail to effectively compete against those companies that don't. It astounds me that so few security people understand what their purpose is:…
Uh, no. The purpose of a security team is to prevent data from being exfiltrated from the company's control. Passwords, PII, HIPPA/other-compliance-controlled stuff, source code, etc. are all at risk of being stolen at all times, which means that security is a game of constant vigilance. And since everybody has at least a bit of this data under their control, this means that everybody is involved with security. (At l…
And you harm security if you're being sufficiently inflexible that staff see it as essential to circumvent your security measures to be able to do their job. Because they will almost certainly manage to do so.
As such, if you hurt productivity enough, you are also going to be failing at protecting company data by making people find alternative solutions, and you're not likely to get permission to go far enough to stop it unless you're working in a field where security clearance is the norm.