5 ms·

> What is the material difference between having employees save DM logs in an auditable, authenticated way and being able to view employee DMs? > When you are

> What is the material difference between having employees save DM logs in an auditable, authenticated way and being able to view employee DMs? > When you are reviewing an auditable log of information related to an employee, you don't necessarily want to have to ask the employee for that information, nor do you necessarily want them to know you're reviewing it. You just answered your own question. You might not want them to know you're reviewing it but they most certainly do want to know that you are.

dsacco 9y ago
> You might not want them to know you're reviewing it but they most certainly do want to know that you are. Of course they want to know. Everyone wants to know. But if they committed a crime, or at least are complicit in a lawsuit the company is facing, their desire for privacy on an information channel they don't own is irrelevant. I don't understand why this is controversial. When the SEC, FBI, local police, opposing legal team, etc. want you to hand over information about an employee, having to ask the employee directly or even let them know is problematic.
- afastow 9y ago
  Maybe I missed some context but since when are we talking about committing crimes and the SEC or FBI getting involved? If it's that serious I assume they'd just get a warrant and get the logs directly from Slack. To me that scenario is completely unrelated to the ability of an employer to silently read DMs of their employees for any reason they see fit.
  - Cacti 9y ago
    Don't you think some companies need the ability to investigate things their employees are doing for the specific purpose of bringing it to the attention of government agencies PRIOR to warrants being issued and PRIOR to pissing off the entire federal government?
    - afastow 9y ago
      No? I'm being serious when I say this idea is absurd to me. If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? If you are going to use "We need to be checking for illegal activity" as a justification, why stop at DMs? Why not ask your employees to always be carrying around a recording device that is constantly sending their verbal conversations somewhere where they can be electronically filtered for suspicious keywords? Obviously that's crazy and I'm not saying anyone is suggesting that or would support that, but what exactly makes that scenario over the line that doesn't apply to DMs? I'm assuming the answer is "expectation of privacy" or the lack-thereof for DMs, and I guess my response would be that we should go back to an expectation of privacy for DMs also.
      - dsacco 9y ago
        > If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? Because “we don’t hire criminals” is not sustainable, just like “we only hire the best engineers” is not realistic. Strive for the best scenario and prepare for the worst. > I'm assuming the answer is "expectation of privacy" or the lack-thereof for DMs, and I guess my response would be that we should go back to an expectation of privacy for DMs also. But why? Why do you feel you’re entitled to privacy for your activity if it’s conducted over a communications medium in a workplace, owned by your employer and intended for work-related use? Your rights are guaranteed in the context of government transgression, not in the context of arbitrary corporate policy. For example, “freedom of speech” is not a meaningful right in a workplace setting either. Your personal rights are not globally applicable in any context. You have avenues available to you for private communication if you’d like, but companies (rightfully) do not want to be responsible for that communication. They want to be responsible for workplace communication. So if you want a private chat, have a private chat outside of Slack. It’s very simple and straightforward. Workplace communication channels are not intended to be, nor advertised as, safe harbors for digital privacy. You can have those, but companies have every right not support them for you. It’s not as though companies want you to have private conversations with people and then peek into them for juicy details. They want you to use their infrastructure for its indended purpose.
- apendleton 9y ago
  Then Slack should (and indeed, does) have special processes for handing over private conversations when served with a warrant, subpoena, court order, etc. "The FBI should be able to do it with probably cause" and "your employer should be able to do it whenever they feel like" are radically different. And I don't disagree that the company owns it and should have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. But the employees should also have the right to think that's shitty, and companies should have the ability to demonstrate their lack of shittiness to their employees by configuring their environment in such a way that a higher barrier exists to snooping. This change doesn't actually make a new thing possible; Slack had a "compliance mode" before that companies could opt into, but it wasn't the default, and users were notified if it was enabled. This change just limits companies abilities not to have snoop mode turned on.
- TremendousJudge 9y ago
  up until now I was acting under the belief that my Slack logs were as private as my WhatsApp logs

dsacco 9y ago

> You might not want them to know you're reviewing it but they most certainly do want to know that you are. Of course they want to know. Everyone wants to know. But if they committed a crime, or at least are complicit in a lawsuit the company is facing, their desire for privacy on an information channel they don't own is irrelevant. I don't understand why this is controversial. When the SEC, FBI, local police, opposing legal team, etc. want you to hand over information about an employee, having to ask the employee directly or even let them know is problematic.

afastow 9y ago
Maybe I missed some context but since when are we talking about committing crimes and the SEC or FBI getting involved? If it's that serious I assume they'd just get a warrant and get the logs directly from Slack. To me that scenario is completely unrelated to the ability of an employer to silently read DMs of their employees for any reason they see fit.
- Cacti 9y ago
  Don't you think some companies need the ability to investigate things their employees are doing for the specific purpose of bringing it to the attention of government agencies PRIOR to warrants being issued and PRIOR to pissing off the entire federal government?
  - afastow 9y ago
    No? I'm being serious when I say this idea is absurd to me. If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? If you are going to use "We need to be checking for illegal activity" as a justification, why stop at DMs? Why not ask your employees to always be carrying around a recording device that is constantly sending their verbal conversations somewhere where they can be electronically filtered for suspicious keywords? Obviously that's crazy and I'm not saying anyone is suggesting that or would support that, but what exactly makes that scenario over the line that doesn't apply to DMs? I'm assuming the answer is "expectation of privacy" or the lack-thereof for DMs, and I guess my response would be that we should go back to an expectation of privacy for DMs also.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      > If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? Because “we don’t hire criminals” is not sustainable, just like “we only hire the best engineers” is not realistic. Strive for the best scenario and prepare for the worst. > I'm assuming the answer is "expectation of privacy" or the lack-thereof for DMs, and I guess my response would be that we should go back to an expectation of privacy for DMs also. But why? Why do you feel you’re entitled to privacy for your activity if it’s conducted over a communications medium in a workplace, owned by your employer and intended for work-related use? Your rights are guaranteed in the context of government transgression, not in the context of arbitrary corporate policy. For example, “freedom of speech” is not a meaningful right in a workplace setting either. Your personal rights are not globally applicable in any context. You have avenues available to you for private communication if you’d like, but companies (rightfully) do not want to be responsible for that communication. They want to be responsible for workplace communication. So if you want a private chat, have a private chat outside of Slack. It’s very simple and straightforward. Workplace communication channels are not intended to be, nor advertised as, safe harbors for digital privacy. You can have those, but companies have every right not support them for you. It’s not as though companies want you to have private conversations with people and then peek into them for juicy details. They want you to use their infrastructure for its indended purpose.
apendleton 9y ago
Then Slack should (and indeed, does) have special processes for handing over private conversations when served with a warrant, subpoena, court order, etc. "The FBI should be able to do it with probably cause" and "your employer should be able to do it whenever they feel like" are radically different. And I don't disagree that the company owns it and should have the right to do whatever they want with the things they own. But the employees should also have the right to think that's shitty, and companies should have the ability to demonstrate their lack of shittiness to their employees by configuring their environment in such a way that a higher barrier exists to snooping. This change doesn't actually make a new thing possible; Slack had a "compliance mode" before that companies could opt into, but it wasn't the default, and users were notified if it was enabled. This change just limits companies abilities not to have snoop mode turned on.
TremendousJudge 9y ago
up until now I was acting under the belief that my Slack logs were as private as my WhatsApp logs