4 ms·

> abusing your privileged access to conversations intended to be private (however justified you may consider it to be) will just breed mistrust among employees

> abusing your privileged access to conversations intended to be private (however justified you may consider it to be) will just breed mistrust among employees Abusing your privileged access?!? You do realize some of us are required to access those communications for a variety of reasons especially because a threat is happening? Also, I don't get a choice when the lawyer shows up and says we need to look at X's account. > I would quit a job that treated me as a child which must be supervised in such a manner. Well, that might save me a bit of trouble, but at the point I am asked to look at your account, I get the feeling you are on your way out anyway or will shortly have a lawyer or the police contacting you. The communication systems you use as an employee are not yours.

netcraft 9y ago
> because a threat is happening because an "alleged" threat is happening. Still, cause for gathering evidence, sure. > I don't get a choice when the lawyer shows up and says we need to look at X's account And now with this, they'll use a different communication method that you dont have access to and now youre back to square one. The best you can hope for is that theyre ignorant of these changes so you can catch them. > ... at the point I am asked to look at your account, I get the feeling you are on your way out anyway or will shortly have a lawyer or the police contacting you. ah, guilty until proven innocent > The communication systems you use as an employee are not yours. This is true, and I dont think slack is necessarily wrong in providing this access - but you shouldnt assume that communications that the user doesnt want the company to be privy to is necessarily malicious or illegal. If you are having legitimate complaints about your job and you want to vent or validate your concerns before proceeding, you might want to have a private conversation with a coworker - and you might legitimately be afraid that your unfiltered, undiplomatic private conversation might be taken out of context or retaliated against.
- cmorgan31 9y ago
  It would make a lot more sense to take your unfiltered and undiplomatic private conversation to a nearby private establishment. If you are remote and can not do this I would simply use a not supplied by work phone. This is for your protection and whoever you bring along to vent. There have been at least two occurrences in my career which have forced my hand on employee communication and in both cases, a blanket refusal was not an option. If you don't want to say something publically don't assume anything your company pays for is private until our society changes its views on where the expectation of privacy exists.
- thecosas 9y ago
  You made many good points, but I'll take issue with this one: > If you are having legitimate complaints about your job and you want to vent or validate your concerns before proceeding, you might want to have a private conversation with a coworker - and you might legitimately be afraid that your unfiltered, undiplomatic private conversation might be taken out of context or retaliated against. If you were retaliated against for your legitimate complaints in private Slack conversations (via firing, harassment, etc) then the records could be subpoenaed for you to prove WHY you were being targeted. It works both ways.
- protomyth 9y ago
  The company isn't a court "alleged" is plenty enough for the company to look at the communication system it pays for to figure out what is going on. It has a communication system to communicate about business. > And now with this, they'll use a different communication method that you dont have access to and now youre back to square one. The best you can hope for is that theyre ignorant of these changes so you can catch them. Good, then its security and HR's problem. We tell everyone we own the communications systems (its even in the employee handbook). > ah, guilty until proven innocent Yep. Welcome to the corporate environment in the US. Frankly, if they think you used the company e-mail / Slack to do your activity then I don't think we are dealing with Moriarty here. > but you shouldnt assume that communications that the user doesnt want the company to be privy to is necessarily malicious or illegal. Then use your own non-company communication system (e.g. text, home e-mail) or go to lunch - how hard is that?
Vektorweg 9y ago
threats are hardly a good reason for mass surveillance.
- dralley 9y ago
  It's not mass surveillance. It's compliance with the rules governing preservation of records for legal discovery.
  - Vektorweg 9y ago
    These are preserved by the participants of the conversation. A third party shouldn't have any hold on it.
peterkelly 9y ago
> The communication systems you use as an employee are not yours. Yes they are. I work as a contractor, remotely, using my own personal equipment, my own personal email account, and either my home internet connection or that of whatever coffee shop or co-working space I happen to be in on any given day. My clients are all located in other cities and countries and lack a physical presence where I live. I've never had any complaints about these arrangements (yes, I do realise I'm very fortunate to be able to work in this manner). I also work for multiple clients. Allowing one of them access to all my work-related communications would involve violating the confidentiality agreements I've signed with the others. Should I be required to divulge the trade secrets or intellectual property of one client to another to satisfy a corporate IT policy? And if I have a personal conversation with someone, which client(s) should I share that with?
- protomyth 9y ago
  Should I be required to divulge the trade secrets or intellectual property of one client to another to satisfy a corporate IT policy? And if I have a personal conversation with someone, which client(s) should I share that with? Contractors are always in an odd position, but its pretty logical and a lot easier these days. If I was a contractor again, I would probably put my communications and project files on VM of their own[1]. You should have a procedure to clearly separate your time, communications, and work product for each client. If you are using your company e-mail then separation is well understood by lawyers. I would make sure to have separate Slack accounts per client. 1) This assumes I am not assigned a PC and accounts by the employer because its a staffing position instead of a work product arrangement.
pyjammas 9y ago
While I sympathize with that concern, I do really believe that actively preventing employees from employing natural means of 'private' conversation is squarely in the 'panopticon' sphere of employment. I find it difficult enough that people can be 'owned' for full work weeks as far as their physical presence, but I suppose I'm pragmatic enough to accept that this is the status quo. But the thought that they are actively monitored during this time, preventing them from even private venting and communicating in a way that is not monitored, is much harder to accept. We're talking about people here. While I personally have never understood how anyone can accept being under the thumb of an employer for such long periods of time out of their productive years, I've learned to see that this is bearable within the relative freedom that this usually entails (complaining about x colleague, grumbling about the boss with the support staff, after-work beers with a manager who grumbles about his manager), I truly cannot understand how one can have a dignified life as an individual when all your forms of communication are being watched by your overlords.
- pyjammas 9y ago
  I can't seem to edit my comment, so I'll comment on my comment instead: To put this in a broader perspective, because I'm tired of the comment-sniping that doesn't seem to lead anywhere: I find myself already a bit uneasy with the whole idea that an individual can write away their freedom to spend their daylight hours tethered to an employer to the point where their every (productive, sunlit) hour needs to be accounted for. At the same time I can understand that this is how things are, and we are trying to be human within that sphere, and perhaps for many this is not so bad as long as they can live in a microcosm of society within this world. That includes gossip, complaining, semi-secret conversation, and even romance (while that's often not smart). I'd really prefer to engage with those who employ and get to dictate the behavior of said employees, instead of comment-sniping where we never bridge that 'gap' between me, a self-employed, individual (because I reject all that), and someone who actively is 'in charge' of people who submit to it. I do realize that my wording in itself is not neutral, but I hope acknowledging that helps bridge that gap a bit at least. And I have counted those 'in charge' as friends in the past, plus I know I'm not a typical 'person', so I'm open to learning to understand this whole thing.
- 9y ago

netcraft 9y ago

> because a threat is happening because an "alleged" threat is happening. Still, cause for gathering evidence, sure. > I don't get a choice when the lawyer shows up and says we need to look at X's account And now with this, they'll use a different communication method that you dont have access to and now youre back to square one. The best you can hope for is that theyre ignorant of these changes so you can catch them. > ... at the point I am asked to look at your account, I get the feeling you are on your way out anyway or will shortly have a lawyer or the police contacting you. ah, guilty until proven innocent > The communication systems you use as an employee are not yours. This is true, and I dont think slack is necessarily wrong in providing this access - but you shouldnt assume that communications that the user doesnt want the company to be privy to is necessarily malicious or illegal. If you are having legitimate complaints about your job and you want to vent or validate your concerns before proceeding, you might want to have a private conversation with a coworker - and you might legitimately be afraid that your unfiltered, undiplomatic private conversation might be taken out of context or retaliated against.

cmorgan31 9y ago
It would make a lot more sense to take your unfiltered and undiplomatic private conversation to a nearby private establishment. If you are remote and can not do this I would simply use a not supplied by work phone. This is for your protection and whoever you bring along to vent. There have been at least two occurrences in my career which have forced my hand on employee communication and in both cases, a blanket refusal was not an option. If you don't want to say something publically don't assume anything your company pays for is private until our society changes its views on where the expectation of privacy exists.
thecosas 9y ago
You made many good points, but I'll take issue with this one: > If you are having legitimate complaints about your job and you want to vent or validate your concerns before proceeding, you might want to have a private conversation with a coworker - and you might legitimately be afraid that your unfiltered, undiplomatic private conversation might be taken out of context or retaliated against. If you were retaliated against for your legitimate complaints in private Slack conversations (via firing, harassment, etc) then the records could be subpoenaed for you to prove WHY you were being targeted. It works both ways.
protomyth 9y ago
The company isn't a court "alleged" is plenty enough for the company to look at the communication system it pays for to figure out what is going on. It has a communication system to communicate about business. > And now with this, they'll use a different communication method that you dont have access to and now youre back to square one. The best you can hope for is that theyre ignorant of these changes so you can catch them. Good, then its security and HR's problem. We tell everyone we own the communications systems (its even in the employee handbook). > ah, guilty until proven innocent Yep. Welcome to the corporate environment in the US. Frankly, if they think you used the company e-mail / Slack to do your activity then I don't think we are dealing with Moriarty here. > but you shouldnt assume that communications that the user doesnt want the company to be privy to is necessarily malicious or illegal. Then use your own non-company communication system (e.g. text, home e-mail) or go to lunch - how hard is that?

Vektorweg 9y ago

threats are hardly a good reason for mass surveillance.

dralley 9y ago
It's not mass surveillance. It's compliance with the rules governing preservation of records for legal discovery.
- Vektorweg 9y ago
  These are preserved by the participants of the conversation. A third party shouldn't have any hold on it.

peterkelly 9y ago

> The communication systems you use as an employee are not yours. Yes they are. I work as a contractor, remotely, using my own personal equipment, my own personal email account, and either my home internet connection or that of whatever coffee shop or co-working space I happen to be in on any given day. My clients are all located in other cities and countries and lack a physical presence where I live. I've never had any complaints about these arrangements (yes, I do realise I'm very fortunate to be able to work in this manner). I also work for multiple clients. Allowing one of them access to all my work-related communications would involve violating the confidentiality agreements I've signed with the others. Should I be required to divulge the trade secrets or intellectual property of one client to another to satisfy a corporate IT policy? And if I have a personal conversation with someone, which client(s) should I share that with?

protomyth 9y ago
Should I be required to divulge the trade secrets or intellectual property of one client to another to satisfy a corporate IT policy? And if I have a personal conversation with someone, which client(s) should I share that with? Contractors are always in an odd position, but its pretty logical and a lot easier these days. If I was a contractor again, I would probably put my communications and project files on VM of their own[1]. You should have a procedure to clearly separate your time, communications, and work product for each client. If you are using your company e-mail then separation is well understood by lawyers. I would make sure to have separate Slack accounts per client. 1) This assumes I am not assigned a PC and accounts by the employer because its a staffing position instead of a work product arrangement.

pyjammas 9y ago

While I sympathize with that concern, I do really believe that actively preventing employees from employing natural means of 'private' conversation is squarely in the 'panopticon' sphere of employment. I find it difficult enough that people can be 'owned' for full work weeks as far as their physical presence, but I suppose I'm pragmatic enough to accept that this is the status quo. But the thought that they are actively monitored during this time, preventing them from even private venting and communicating in a way that is not monitored, is much harder to accept. We're talking about people here. While I personally have never understood how anyone can accept being under the thumb of an employer for such long periods of time out of their productive years, I've learned to see that this is bearable within the relative freedom that this usually entails (complaining about x colleague, grumbling about the boss with the support staff, after-work beers with a manager who grumbles about his manager), I truly cannot understand how one can have a dignified life as an individual when all your forms of communication are being watched by your overlords.

pyjammas 9y ago
I can't seem to edit my comment, so I'll comment on my comment instead: To put this in a broader perspective, because I'm tired of the comment-sniping that doesn't seem to lead anywhere: I find myself already a bit uneasy with the whole idea that an individual can write away their freedom to spend their daylight hours tethered to an employer to the point where their every (productive, sunlit) hour needs to be accounted for. At the same time I can understand that this is how things are, and we are trying to be human within that sphere, and perhaps for many this is not so bad as long as they can live in a microcosm of society within this world. That includes gossip, complaining, semi-secret conversation, and even romance (while that's often not smart). I'd really prefer to engage with those who employ and get to dictate the behavior of said employees, instead of comment-sniping where we never bridge that 'gap' between me, a self-employed, individual (because I reject all that), and someone who actively is 'in charge' of people who submit to it. I do realize that my wording in itself is not neutral, but I hope acknowledging that helps bridge that gap a bit at least. And I have counted those 'in charge' as friends in the past, plus I know I'm not a typical 'person', so I'm open to learning to understand this whole thing.
9y ago