Uh--I'm not sure how you guys can't be "against" me. If you're not locking down systems to the point that you're killing productivity then I have no qualms with your method of operation.
I do have a problem with those that lock down and kill productivity -- which is a very very common problem.
If the right strategy is implemented the right way, it won't "kill productivity."
When rolling out security and management policy to an environment that consists of, say, tens of thousands of users, for example, one of the more problematic issues is coming across a business unit run by somebody who has had one of their resident geeks tell them, "B-b-b-b-b-but I
NEED to be able to do x, y, and z! And they won't let me do that anymore!" and couch their protectionism in a "This'll kill productivity!" argument. Almost universally -- at least without exception in every instance I've seen -- it's BS.
In environments of that size, productivity (from an IT perspective) is gained through standardization. A
standard exception should exist for the staff with the kind of geekier responsibilities that would require them to be subject to lighter restrictions, and all of that staff should be a part of whatever subunit has that consideration built into it so it can be appropriately managed/partitioned.
So the question becomes, it's supposedly "killing" "productivity" for
whom, exactly? If it's somebody whose responsibilities
require rights beyond what the locked-down schema grants them, they should (best case) be in a part of the organization in which systems management is handled more actively... Rolling them into a centrally managed technology group virtually always makes the most sense (e.g. those groups are hardly ever responsible for those lovely "Hey, uh, we've got this 3GB MS Access file that doesn't work and the developer died. Can you help?" issues), despite the fact that they may feel see their role as less "productive" individually. But if it's some geek who simply doesn't like being handcuffed? Tango Sierra. Go work somewhere else.
Anyway, that's an overly-complicated way of explaining the simple reality that
some so-called "productivity" loss is perfectly acceptable -- even
desirable in some cases. It all depends.
Usually it's the good people that make it into the SMS/app-packaging roles... Not so there, apparently. 
