9 ms·

> Only way to see it was to boot an offending intern from his work station and go into his Slack to see what was happening. Why couldn't you just ask the recip

> Only way to see it was to boot an offending intern from his work station and go into his Slack to see what was happening. Why couldn't you just ask the recipient to look on his station? > We had to make all intern accounts into multi-channel guests after that Are 2 interns ever allowed to be alone together? I mean it's essentially the same, you are saying they can't be trusted so either you always need them in groups of 3, or you should put cameras everywhere with microphones... I am glad that you are serious about tackling abuse, but more monitoring and rules about congregation are not the right solution imo.

softawre 9y ago
Not to be contrarian here, but could you offer a solution given that you've thought about this?
- mixmastamyk 9y ago
  Did you miss his first (the second) paragraph?
  - Kalium 9y ago
    I don't know about parent, but I did notice that! I saw it clearly written there. I read it and understood it. I understand that the person who wrote it believes it is sufficient to cover all relevant needs. I would posit that this person may not be familiar with the importance of collecting evidence against possible future needs. An IT manager's testimony from memory, no matter how perfect, is not as useful as evidence collected in a technological manner at the time of offense. With that in mind, walking over and looking at the intern's screen might be considered by some to be less than a full replacement.
    - mixmastamyk 9y ago
      No need to recite from memory when the log is trivially viewed or copied at a later date.
      - Kalium 9y ago
        You're right! The log can be easily viewed or accessed later. This of course occasionally requires an annoying amount of screwing around with reactivating old accounts, resetting passwords, and so on. Irritating, but of course a price well worth paying for employee privacy. With that said, is it perhaps possible that direct access is preferable for reasons other than sheer laziness? Chain of custody and provenance both come to mind as items that some enterprise users of Slack might find worthy of consideration in some circumstances. This is obviously not nearly as important as employee privacy, but still...
        mixmastamyk 9y ago
        Reactivating accounts would only need to happen if the accuser had left immediately, which doesn't seem likely. I think it is just that big companies have a way of doing things, are paying the bills, and employee privacy is close to last on their priority list—far behind CYA. They don't care that there is another potential solution.
        Kalium 9y ago
        A person leaving a company after filing a harassment complaint strikes me as very likely. I personally know people who have very precisely that. It's a very common scenario in large companies. Having personally dealt with some of those companies and situations, I can tell you quite simply that people are definitely aware that there are other potential solutions. Such approaches are seen as not adequate for purpose. The reasons for this judgment are not merely arbitrary or capricious. They are broadly quite sound and reasonable, and I touched on them above in an effort to give you an opportunity to grow in your understanding of those you disagree with. And yes, as you say, companies are far more interested in limiting liability than they are in employee privacy on company-controlled systems. It's not, as some might suggest, that employee privacy is not valued. It's a question of priorities, and companies tend to place being able to defend themselves and control their risks adequately over an employee's right to leverage their privacy and incur liability for the company. Though I understand why some might prefer to dismiss the above and think of it as just another example of big, stupid, corporate laziness and refusing to consider alternatives.
castlecrasher2 9y ago
You have to ask why they wouldn't want to talk to an individual suspected of wrongdoing? Why look at security footage, when you can "just ask" the suspect?
- majewsky 9y ago
  You misunderstood. The accused may not be willing to cooperate, but the accuser probably will.
- cjrp 9y ago
  The recipient isn't suspected of wrongdoing, they're on the receiving end of the abuse.
theobon 9y ago
You are assuming that harassment was direct, sending messages to the accusers. My impression is that this was a group chatting privately about the accusers either making fun of them or coordinating actions. While this can be done through other channels (in person or private cellphone) allowing it on corporate infrastructure without monitoring is not acceptable.
- pera 9y ago
  If harassers, as you have mentioned, can simply switch to another channel, then what problem exactly is this measure trying to solve? I'm honestly confused.
  - guitarbill 9y ago
    Ass-covering. It should've been obvious as soon as HR was mentioned that this isn't about helping employees, harassed or not.
    - shawnz 9y ago
      Before this change, would the company have been liable for harassing DMs on Slack, an unaffiliated service where they previously were not able to read peoples DMs?
      - efuquen 9y ago
        > an unaffiliated service Unaffiliated? The company a customer that is paying Slack for a messaging service, that certainly isn't 'unaffiliated'.
  - Normal_gaussian 9y ago
    It increases the friction of harrassment
    - ctrl-j 9y ago
      No it doesn't. It literally just removes liability from the corporation. If you've ever dealt with toxic work relationships, you know that stopping harassment isn't going to come down to how you are allowed to pass notes.
freyir 9y ago
>> Only way to see it was to boot an offending intern from his work station and go into his Slack to see what was happening. > Why couldn't you just ask the recipient to look on his station? This is probably exactly what happened? I'm guessing they didn't physically pry the unwilling intern from his seat like he was passenger on United.

softawre 9y ago

Not to be contrarian here, but could you offer a solution given that you've thought about this?

mixmastamyk 9y ago
Did you miss his first (the second) paragraph?
- Kalium 9y ago
  I don't know about parent, but I did notice that! I saw it clearly written there. I read it and understood it. I understand that the person who wrote it believes it is sufficient to cover all relevant needs. I would posit that this person may not be familiar with the importance of collecting evidence against possible future needs. An IT manager's testimony from memory, no matter how perfect, is not as useful as evidence collected in a technological manner at the time of offense. With that in mind, walking over and looking at the intern's screen might be considered by some to be less than a full replacement.
  - mixmastamyk 9y ago
    No need to recite from memory when the log is trivially viewed or copied at a later date.
    - Kalium 9y ago
      You're right! The log can be easily viewed or accessed later. This of course occasionally requires an annoying amount of screwing around with reactivating old accounts, resetting passwords, and so on. Irritating, but of course a price well worth paying for employee privacy. With that said, is it perhaps possible that direct access is preferable for reasons other than sheer laziness? Chain of custody and provenance both come to mind as items that some enterprise users of Slack might find worthy of consideration in some circumstances. This is obviously not nearly as important as employee privacy, but still...
      - mixmastamyk 9y ago
        Reactivating accounts would only need to happen if the accuser had left immediately, which doesn't seem likely. I think it is just that big companies have a way of doing things, are paying the bills, and employee privacy is close to last on their priority list—far behind CYA. They don't care that there is another potential solution.
        Kalium 9y ago
        A person leaving a company after filing a harassment complaint strikes me as very likely. I personally know people who have very precisely that. It's a very common scenario in large companies. Having personally dealt with some of those companies and situations, I can tell you quite simply that people are definitely aware that there are other potential solutions. Such approaches are seen as not adequate for purpose. The reasons for this judgment are not merely arbitrary or capricious. They are broadly quite sound and reasonable, and I touched on them above in an effort to give you an opportunity to grow in your understanding of those you disagree with. And yes, as you say, companies are far more interested in limiting liability than they are in employee privacy on company-controlled systems. It's not, as some might suggest, that employee privacy is not valued. It's a question of priorities, and companies tend to place being able to defend themselves and control their risks adequately over an employee's right to leverage their privacy and incur liability for the company. Though I understand why some might prefer to dismiss the above and think of it as just another example of big, stupid, corporate laziness and refusing to consider alternatives.

castlecrasher2 9y ago

You have to ask why they wouldn't want to talk to an individual suspected of wrongdoing? Why look at security footage, when you can "just ask" the suspect?

majewsky 9y ago
You misunderstood. The accused may not be willing to cooperate, but the accuser probably will.
cjrp 9y ago
The recipient isn't suspected of wrongdoing, they're on the receiving end of the abuse.

theobon 9y ago

You are assuming that harassment was direct, sending messages to the accusers. My impression is that this was a group chatting privately about the accusers either making fun of them or coordinating actions. While this can be done through other channels (in person or private cellphone) allowing it on corporate infrastructure without monitoring is not acceptable.

pera 9y ago
If harassers, as you have mentioned, can simply switch to another channel, then what problem exactly is this measure trying to solve? I'm honestly confused.
- guitarbill 9y ago
  Ass-covering. It should've been obvious as soon as HR was mentioned that this isn't about helping employees, harassed or not.
  - shawnz 9y ago
    Before this change, would the company have been liable for harassing DMs on Slack, an unaffiliated service where they previously were not able to read peoples DMs?
    - efuquen 9y ago
      > an unaffiliated service Unaffiliated? The company a customer that is paying Slack for a messaging service, that certainly isn't 'unaffiliated'.
- Normal_gaussian 9y ago
  It increases the friction of harrassment
  - ctrl-j 9y ago
    No it doesn't. It literally just removes liability from the corporation. If you've ever dealt with toxic work relationships, you know that stopping harassment isn't going to come down to how you are allowed to pass notes.

freyir 9y ago

>> Only way to see it was to boot an offending intern from his work station and go into his Slack to see what was happening. > Why couldn't you just ask the recipient to look on his station? This is probably exactly what happened? I'm guessing they didn't physically pry the unwilling intern from his seat like he was passenger on United.