Policy control
- Policy owner
- e.g. IT Director
- Approved by and date
- Version
An acceptable use policy only does its job if you can prove someone agreed to it. This one pairs clear, enforceable clauses with the acknowledgment register that turns the policy into something you can actually rely on in a disciplinary or legal process.
Say what monitoring actually happens. Vague wording like 'systems may be monitored' is both unhelpful and, in several jurisdictions, legally insufficient. State what is logged, why, how long it is kept, and who can access it.
Make the AI clause specific. 'Use AI responsibly' is unenforceable. Name the approved tools, state which data classifications may never be pasted into them, and give the route for requesting a new tool.
Track acknowledgment, or the policy is decorative. Record who accepted which version and when. Without that register you cannot demonstrate the person knew the rule, which is the first question asked in any enforcement situation.
Here's a preview. Unlock the free download to get all 4 sections (3 more below).
More free templates IT teams use alongside this one.
The information security policy is the parent document auditors ask for first. Its job is not to contain every control. It is to state the organisation's position, assign responsibility, and point to the specific policies that implement it.
BYOD policies fail on one question: what exactly happens to someone's personal phone when they leave or lose it. Answering that precisely, in advance, is the difference between a policy people accept and one they quietly evade.
Banning AI tools does not work. It moves usage onto personal accounts where you have no visibility at all. This policy assumes people will use AI and makes the boundary explicit: which tools, which data, and how to get something new approved.
Device and network use, personal use limits, authentication requirements, data handling by classification, software installation, AI tool usage, remote working, incident reporting duties, what monitoring takes place, and the consequences of breach.
They need to acknowledge it in a way you can evidence. An e-signature or recorded system acceptance is sufficient. Without a dated acknowledgment against a specific version, enforcement becomes difficult because you cannot show the person knew the rule.
Annually, and after any material change in technology or working practice. The AI clause in particular has needed revision far more often than annually for most organisations over the last two years.