17 ms·

Bosses panic-buy spy software to keep tabs on remote workers

472 points by chatmasta 7y ago

readme 7y ago
PSA for businesses: how about instead of spying on the deadweight you fire them and reward the productive employees. There are tons of work from home employees (who normally work from home) who are 10x more productive than the in-office ones, because they realize the value of what they have. It's too bad most people will only work when you're looking over their shoulder, but lets not keep that on life-support with spyware. Let it die and usher in a time when people actually take the initiative to do their work.
- asveikau 7y ago
  I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely. How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.
  - Loughla 7y ago
    >especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures. I can't wait for performance reviews to just die. I'm middle-management at my institution, and I see my job as making sure my teams have what they need and are insulated from the bullshit enough to get done what they need to get done, how they see best to do it. And then performance reviews happen. I can't do their jobs. I don't want to do their jobs. That's the reason I hire them instead of doing it myself. How can I tell them they're not doing a good job or what to improve on? Their metrics are met, their clients are being appropriately serviced. WHY??? Because we need a way to quantify human performance when we have to downsize. That's why. It's dark, but I'm convinced that's what is at the root of corporate performance reviews across the US.
  - readme 7y ago
    >contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution. None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did nothing but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance metric changes from time in seat to work produced.
    - aidenn0 7y ago
      People are just naturally biased towards rewarding effort though. It feels really uncomfortable to label someone who gets into work before you, leaves work after you, and isn't ever seen to be doing obvious goof-off things as "dead weight"
    - asveikau 7y ago
      Most of the time when I have seen that situation, ignoring for a moment that my own assessment of the situation is also subjective, the person keeps the job despite there being performance review culture in place.
  - VectorLock 7y ago
    Especially in these times anybody who indicates a decline in performance might be having serious personal issues that you might want to approach with empathy rather than cutting them off like a gangrenous limb.
  - amznthrowaway5 7y ago
    For all the rage against algorithm programming interviews you see here on HN, at least those interviews are far more objective than perf and promo reviews.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
xwdv 7y ago
The more spy software a boss buys, the more insecure they really are about themselves.
- sambull 7y ago
  Well its a good litmus to know where not to work. Better knowing with such a straight forward method.
  - mc32 7y ago
    With a quarter of the workforce furloughed or RIFed I’m not sure most people will have the option to be choosy.
- 52-6F-62 7y ago
  It may sound like a basic platitude, but I think you're correct. I feel fortunate to work with people who want to treat each other like adults. That's been my managers' perspectives, and it's well appreciated.
wayoutthere 7y ago
Mark Cuban got it right last week when he said that the way companies treat their employees over the next few months will define their brand for the next several decades. Companies insisting on this level of control are simply adding cost now and making employee retention difficult for when we end up coming out of this. If your company can't handle ground-level employees having some autonomy in their work, then your business model isn't likely to survive. Besides, given the extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be equally productive to being in the office. In addition to the fact that some people just don't perform as well without the structure of an office (I'm personally one of them), we've got kids to take care of, extra chores to do, and the general anxiety coming from the media. People are not going to be 100% right now, so the need to build a work culture that can support that reality is more important now than ever.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
  I am going to add anecdote from my little corner. Last week all of our team ( 10+ people total ). Not terrible and it happened before so we were good. All of a sudden, vendor suffered a breach. We went into disaster mode and survived the day. That day was Friday. In its infinite wisdom senior management tried to bring one volunteer on a Sunday to the office so that they can manually do the things we did remote on Friday. No one volunteered, because it was a retarded idea. It was clear they wanted a live body to yell at. Friday was that kind of day. They eventually backed off. But senior management here is old and unwilling to let go of control they thought they had so far. Out of completeness, my pc is riddled with control crap running in background often slowing me down. Some of it makes sense ( why are you moving all this data ? ; why are looking up marijuana dispensary address ). Most of it does not fall under reasonable category.. So what people do? They adapt. They know their work pcs are riddled with crap so they spend ridiculous amount of time on their pocket computers instead.. It is a weird arms race.
- CPLX 7y ago
  > If your company can't handle ground-level employees having some autonomy in their work, then your business model isn't likely to survive. > Besides, given the extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be equally productive to being in the office. It's worth noting that you're describing a very specific subset of the world of employment, namely people who work with some degree of autonomy in an office setting. I would be shocked if even half of the American workforce primarily works in an "at a desk" or equivalent type position.
mc32 7y ago
Two things: Productivity is going to plunge no matter what, with the possible exception of singles who don’t have roommates. There is no way that during an ad hoc and unorganized push to work remote (though necessary in this circumstance) can result in good productivity, monitoring or not. Under the best of circumstances it would take months for a mass of people to adjust and be productive. The apex for open office design was reached and we’ll go back to something more normal. It’s funny people derided “cubicle farms” but we’re more or less okay being in a “bullpen” like setting cuz it was sold as being counter cultural and cool.
- fermienrico 7y ago
  Just the movement of people in my peripheral vision alone is distracting. Then there is the chatter and constant interruptions (which I welcome in a friendly way but deep down under I don't want to be interrupted). Cubicles with a door would be great. The ceiling can be open and have sun light coming in. Maybe the walls should be white and there should be a lamp of my own (for notes).
- prostheticvamp 7y ago
  I think less than 5% of comments on open-office design, that I have ever seen, were positive. Who are the people you are describing as being “sold”?
  - strict9 7y ago
    Managers and executives. 1. Cheaper rent because you need less space 2. Easier to look over shoulders and on to computer monitors Managers (especially product managers) delude themselves into thinking this spurs collaboration and creativity and productivity.
    - robk 7y ago
      As a former pm I can't think of a single colleague who loved open plan. We at best tolerated but I think every one of us would have been a happy recipient of an office!
    - 7y ago
sbarre 7y ago
This happened to me years ago. I was put in an empty office at the opposite end from my boss, and because he couldn't walk up behind me to see me working, he secretly installed a program on my computer that took a screenshot every 30 seconds (or so?). I quickly noticed that my computer was hitching regularly (when the screenshot was taken - this was in the late 90s BTW), and so investigated my computer on a day when he wasn't in the office. After finding what looked like malware on my computer, I checked with other colleagues - and the other owner - and no one had any idea what it was. So we put the office network on lockdown, halted everything and started the process of rotating all our passwords and scanning every computer in the office looking for signs of intrusion, etc.. We lost a solid day of productivity for everyone, and when we finally reached the other boss, he owned up to what he had done, and the other owner - who had spent the day in a panic - wasn't thrilled about it to say the least. The irony was that I was probably the most productive person in that office (in my humble opinion).
- gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
  Where I live what he did is a fairly serious criminal offence.
  - adwww 7y ago
    Waves in European...
    - usui 7y ago
      What does this mean?
      - cheeze 7y ago
        adwww is implying that this would be illegal in EU (unsure if that is true or not) and is "greeting" the other poster saying "hey, I'm European too"
        adwww 7y ago
lmilcin 7y ago
Two sides of the story. One: people that are doing this are likely to have already been bad bosses. I don't think this changes anything. Two: I work for a large bank. My director, on a town hall, told us they do understand that not everybody will be able to focus on the job as before and that they expect us to spend less time actually working and be unavailable more often. Then he URGED us to actually do so. To take time off, to deal with family problems first. He wanted us to know it is ok and that they will allow it without deducting pay so that we don't have to worry about our salaries. I am pretty sure there will be people that will abuse this. You know what? People who do this probably have already been bad employees so not much is lost. Most people I know to be good employees feel very happy about this as a convenient option and do whatever they can to use it as little as possible. I see this as an investment that is most likely return in other ways, employee happiness, retention, engagement from the staff you really want engaged.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  #2 is super important for folks who aren't used to working remotely to take to heart. It's really easy to feel the (self-imposed) pressure to be available all the time and feel anxious because you're not doing work for 8 hours straight -- that's the road to burnout. In reality most people only do a couple hours of "heads down" work on a normal day; removing the office politics and moving to a more asynchronous communication style simply makes obvious how little "work" actually gets done at most offices.
- cortesoft 7y ago
  Yeah, I think bosses who freak out about people not being productive while working from home underestimate how much people can avoid being productive while physically at work.
  - lmilcin 7y ago
    Exactly. Wrong mental model. Your best bet is to hire/make/keep people interested in being productive. When this is lost there isn't going much you can do to improve productivity. Keeping employee chained to their desks will not magically make things get done. This is so naive. I wonder how humanity landed in the situation where half of all managers don't get the first thing about managing people.
sheeshkebab 7y ago
“ Frost declined to comment on whether Garrabrants, one of America’s top-paid bank CEOs in 2018, is subject to the same monitoring when he works from home.” Tells it all pretty much...
- karatestomp 7y ago
  A lot of “very important” employee-control bullshit suddenly doesn’t matter when the person in question is in a C-level or board position. See also: piss tests, limits on doing other work while with an employer. Very important you’re sober as a judge and giving your company your undivided productive output—unless you’re CEO, then, a weekend habit or two and you’re involved with four companies at once in some capacity? Sure, go nuts.
  - rodgerd 7y ago
    Anyone who hasn't read "Bullshit Jobs" really should. It's a book for the times.
  - jedberg 7y ago
    "It would be a security/compliance/legal violation to screenshot the CxO's screen because they might be working on something materially important to our stock price and we can't risk someone in IT seeing that or leaking it".
czbond 7y ago
A manager wanting to use spy software is overtly telling the world and themselves they are a poor manager.
code4tee 7y ago
We had a bad manager at my last company who really wanted to do this sort of thing. I said to him “So this is an interesting proposal... if we install this software then I can save on management costs by replacing your position with this spyware?” He never brought it up again and we later just got rid of him completely. Micromanagement and this sort of spying rarely builds high performing teams. Managing worker productivity is one thing but blatant spying is a sign of much deeper problems with a company and its management. I’ve generally found a fairly strong inverse correlation between how good a manager is and the amount of paranoia they have on their teams not doing what they should. Good managers build great teams and then trust them.
- readme 7y ago
  micromanagement is life support for low performers
  - ben_w 7y ago
    For those doing it or for those receiving it?
    - jgust 7y ago
      yes
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - jerf 7y ago
    That is true, and I've seen it deployed to good effect... but it's a knob you should turn when it becomes evident it is needed for a particular person, not something you just nail to "maximum" for all employees.
- duxup 7y ago
  I ran into this once: Another team (team A) needed a lot of help and my team (Team B) was 'similar'. So we were brought on to help despite Team A's objections that we surely couldn't do the job. So we went to work and were out performing them from day 1. Team A's management was not happy and was sure we were somehow 'gaming the system'. They had all sorts of ways and theories on how Team B must be doing it and convinced another layer of management to get someone from the outside to investigate. They investigated and found the only folks 'gaming the system' (they were doing a lot of underhanded things to manipulate KPIs and etc).... were Team A. Sometimes the folks out there throwing a lot of shade and being excessively suspicious only think of those things about others ... because they would do it and they assume everyone else would too. With unfounded accusations and etc, I've found that to be true time and time again.
zer00eyz 7y ago
I have moved from "solutions architect" to "WFH consultant" at the behest of my clients. The problem I am seeing is that many managers have NO idea how their employees actually work. If you take your average MacDonalds manager they can (mostly) work every station in the joint and then know how to do MORE things. Your average corporate middle manager has NO idea what their staff does or how. To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed. I have one client who wants to snapshot staff at their computers, and another who is ready to cut middle management fat... we live in interesting times.
- mmhsieh 7y ago
  it will be all too obvious soon who is going to get cut now that productivity is going to be much more clearly measured.
- draw_down 7y ago
  The old maxim about the low tide exposing who isn't wearing any trunks is just as true this time, but way more so. In a situation where this quarantine could last months longer, what good is some manager whose value proposition was that they schmoozed around the office all day? See ya.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  > To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed. I know exactly the affect you are describing but it just seems so backwards to me because this is the point at which the social aspects of work become more important. Coworkers aren't going to be informally communicating the way they used to so managers have way more "social" work to do.
balls187 7y ago
This may be hard for those of us in tech to comprehend; not everyone can function without having a boss to keep them 100% accountable. In 2004, I worked for a startup and we had beer in the fridge. We'd have an occasional afternoon where we would grab them. No big deal. Most startups I worked at embraced a similar attitude. Finally I worked for a company that went a step further and had beer on tap, but had rules, no beer until 5p M-Th, and 4p Friday. It was foreign to me, but understood that in other divisions, the types of employees (like inside sales) were essentially entry-level roles. Many of us in industry are used to flex hours, and the ability to remotely (including WFH), that we forget that for many others, it's novel. Seeing "asses in chairs" was a proxy for diagnosing productivity deficiencies, and bosses thrust into this new paradigm of working haven't necessarily picked up the skill sets to effectively manage remote teams.
- Loughla 7y ago
  I've read this comment like 10 times in the last hour. I get what you're saying, but it misses the point, I think. >entry-level roles. >used to flex hours, and the ability to remotely (including WFH), that we forget that for many others, it's novel. That's the point of management and leadership. You take new people and make sure they have what they need to get the job done. For most people, that 'what they need' is a literal statement of "I know you have access to beer, and I know you just graduated college, but don't get hammered on company time" or "I know you're 22, but flex hours means your work still gets done". If you don't say it out loud, and assume people will pick it up via osmosis, you're a bad leader. >bosses thrust into this new paradigm of working haven't necessarily picked up the skill sets to effectively manage remote As someone who has never worked remotely, and manages a team very much focused on human interaction (higher ed), and who is now 100% remote, I need to know what you mean by this. Other than needing to automatically over-communicate everything (by my definition), how is remote different than in-person?
  - balls187 7y ago
    > If you don't say it out loud, and assume people will pick it up via osmosis, you're a bad leader. To some extent, I agree, though it largely depends on the role. Setting expectations clearly is important as a leader, as is providing clear, timely feedback when expectations aren't met. In college, it's a wake up call to students, because professors do not provide followup the way grade school teachers do. You are given your work and expected to turn it in. For engineers, it's largely as you said--you're an adult. Act like an adult. If you're getting hammered on company time, we'll have a discussion about it, and why it's happening. On the flip-side, I had a house-hold employee who dressed completely inappropriately for her job. I wrote her up about it and sent her information (guidelines) around appropriate dress code for her role. > How is remote different than in-person? Physical presence can correlate with productivity. That may be the sole signal that triggers a boss to look at actual productivity metrics. There are other approximations, such as responsiveness to communications (email, slack etc) as well. But I posit the leaders who are spying on employees have trained their intuition to be based on physical presence. Without that, they're scared. I follow the model that the team owns their deliverables, and delivery dates, with input from me. I advocate shorter deliverables or checkpoints to uncover issues with estimates sooner, but ultimately leave it up to the team to execute. If something isn't delivered on time, I as a leader address the underlying causes. My philosophy as a boss is "You have a lot of flexibility. Just get your work done when you say you will." And not everyone has the maturity to work in such an environment. I hope that explains my feelings more clearly.
state_less 7y ago
No, just no. If a boss can't communicate deliverables and verify that these are getting finished, they are too incompetent to manage their domain. They shouldn't be scraping personal information off screencaps, video or audio feeds. This doesn't even seem like it ought to be legal. Workers are there to do a job, not have every personal detail monitored and tracked. Should the show password feature be turned off in UIs given how much sensitive information shows up on a screen? How much control of people's lives can a free society hand over to shareholders before it's no longer considered humane?
- sneak 7y ago
  > They shouldn't be scraping personal information off screencaps I agree, but so should the employee not be accessing any personal information on company screens.
  - state_less 7y ago
    Employees do access personal information on company screens. If I check my healthcare plan or retirement plan, use the show password feature, look for another job outside my managers group, etc... This is to say nothing of a normal employer who doesn't mind breaks if you're getting work done. I'd sooner try my luck living in the forest with the other animals than work under such surveillance. I feel sorry for those who are in a rough spot and feel pressed into this sort of thing.
    - sneak 7y ago
      > Employees do access personal information on company screens. I think that this was more of an issue back when every person on staff didn't have their own personal wireless touchscreen computer on them at all times. Now it's just a training issue: company hardware for company tasks, personal hardware for personal tasks.
      - teddyh 7y ago
        But what if they use company electricity to charge their personal devices?
kstenerud 7y ago
Eventually someone will come up with a site that lists which companies install spyware on worker's computers, after which there will be a shaming period, and then only the scummiest companies will continue with such a policy.
notlukesky 7y ago
Is there a map of where this is legal and illegal?
- pp19dd 7y ago
  Think this is uncharted territory and laws are probably irreconcilably disparate from state to state, from country to country. In the U.S., it's likely that the most consistently established legal framework revolves around recorded telephone conversations, the one-party consent laws and two-party consent laws, of which some contain mentions and subsets of 'electronic communications.' "Recording conversations in all 50 states chart" (PDF): https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING... Wikipedia has a list of countries with some laws, but, it's a very shy list. List of two-party consent laws in the U.S. is very short.
freepor 7y ago
“Panic buying” is the new word for “purchases I condemn”
austincheney 7y ago
Here is the key part of the article: > Straight-up Big Brother, perhaps, but it’s perfectly legal for businesses to keep an unblinking eye on employees as long as they disclose they’re doing it. It is the companies equipment, network (on their side of the VPN), time, and so forth. That being said it is legally fine so long as they disclose they are doing so. If they monitor in ways that have not been disclosed they risk of a class action lawsuit should that knowledge be leaked to employees. Let's look at a far more extreme example: US Army. US Army is not allowed to monitor user activity in that way and all users of Army networks are made aware of this. Users must also sign their agreement to an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) before gaining access to the network. The Army example is more extreme because the Army owns the computers, the network, and all physical network infrastructure that companies typically lease to ISPs. The Army has the ability to monitor user activity in ways that companies cannot and yet the Army does not do so because it's illegal without a probable cause search warrant or command directive with legal authorization. For example, computers with an Army image monitor for attachment of mass storage devices and moment a phone or hard drive is plugged in the network administrator is immediately notified, the local network switch is automatically dropped from the network, and a report is automatically drafted for the respective violating unit. The Army can monitor for that because it is a violation of the AUP users signed, but they cannot monitor any associated content without probably cause and an AUP violation on its own is not probable cause. I have heard, on the other hand, the Air Force monitors absolutely everything because they require their users to sign a consent to monitoring directive to gain access to the network.
- rodgerd 7y ago
  > It is the companies equipment, network (on their side of the VPN), time, and so forth. That being said it is legally fine so long as they disclose they are doing so. Is the employee's house company property? Are the other people living there company property?
  - austincheney 7y ago
    Then use your personal computer.
mjasinski5 7y ago
I wrote an article regarding this topic few days ago: https://medium.com/@mjasinski5/how-companies-failed-a-trust-exam-by-coronavirus-96b1843093a3 https://medium.com/@mjasinski5/how-companies-failed-a-trust-... The same its happening in Poland and probably all over the world. Companies do not trust their employees.. and it doesnt end on buying spy software.
k__ 7y ago
The boss of my girlfriend did this even when they were on-site. I think such people should be forbidden from founding/leading a company. Nationalise that thing and be done with it.
Yizahi 7y ago
Aww, that's so cute, a humans making around x500 to x1000 more money as a median humans in their companies are crying about "unfaaair". Cry some more, @#$%^&*. PS: somehow my 1000+ ppl international company manages to work from home and deliver results without authoritarian tools.
salawat 7y ago
My recommendation: A) Audit your base machine for any suspicious processes. Most of the time, something will stick out. For Windows boxes, pay attention to the Startup/Autorun sections of the Windows Registry/Group Policy. On *Nix boxes, either unit or init scripts; audit your launched plists. B) If you do suspect information exfiltration/monitoring; cripple/subvert the sensors/information stream. Exact details will vary depending on the nature of the spyware. A hardware bug is harder to do deal with than a software one, and some forms of software bugging are more difficult to circumvent than others. C) If it is really overt and obnoxious; organize with coworkers. The only thing that'll eventually get the message across to unscrupulous and invasive employers is collective organized resistance. One or two or up to 100 depending on size they may not give a damn, but when half the workforce is up in arms, there will have to be a carefully considered response. D) Always be ready to leave. Seriously. Particularly in today's day and age. I don't think it's natural at first, as we all at some level I think hope that our employer has some intrinsic loyalty toward us as an employee; but that really isn't the case at all culturally anymore. Don't let it hold you back from doing your best, but always keep in mind they are making more off you than you them; otherwise it isn't a business that's going to be staying around for very long.
- Loughla 7y ago
  I think 'D' only applies if (1) you work in a privileged sector, or (2) we're not expecting a 25%+ unemployment rate.
cameronfraser 7y ago
Where I work there is less focus on micromanaging people's time and more focus on results. Having your activity micromanaged at that level is mentally exhausting. When I was in college and had no skills whatsoever I used to do Lionbridge/Leapforce which had you do all kinds of stuff like rank search results, check videos for nudity, etc. They had an extension that would monitor all your activity and if you stopped and got distracted it would impact your rating/health and you could eventually be fired (not sure if firing is the right word its a gig type thing). IMO this is very nerve wracking and not mentally healthy for workers to experience. Treat people like adults and on average they will act like adults. You will always have underperformers regardless of whether you are micromanaging their time or not. Sometimes I want to take a break to play with my dog or decompress after a long meeting. Everyone should have the same right to do so. Ironically, archaic notions about micromanaging workers time works against employers more than working for them.
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
"Panic-buying" is buying something with the intent of securing it before the resource runs out. Given the near infinite scalability of software, the phrase seems poorly applied here.
- wayneftw 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure it can also mean that you’re buying something that you don’t need because you’re in a panic. Where did you get the official definition?
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    > Panic buying: the action of buying large quantities of a particular product or commodity due to sudden fears of a forthcoming shortage or price increase. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+panic+buying https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+panic+buying
    - wayneftw 7y ago
      Great! So it actually fits this situation wherein a large quantity of spyware has just been purchased... the price increase being the amount they're paying for their workers productivity.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
        There isn't any evidence this software improves productivity. Also, they aren't purchasing the software because they expect the software to (a) increase in price or (b) become unavailable. So it isn't panic buying.
        wayneftw 7y ago
        Well if someone is in a panic and they are buying something because of that panic I am going to continue calling that panic buying. I’m sure that the definition or your understanding of that definition will catch up to my forward thinking at some point.
bredren 7y ago
Upwork has largely required contractors to install and run their spy software in order to earn money through their system. Thankfully MacOS Sierra put the kibosh on the capture ability without special permissions. I denied that request and the client never brought it up. I do get why these tools are needed, however I find the use of them counterproductive and creates an adversarial posture between clients and contractors.
throwawaymanbot 7y ago
Since its stressful working from home, this is despicable. There is enough stress on people currently without adding this BS.
flanbiscuit 7y ago
We need a tutorial on how to detect if you're being monitored like this. As an employee I would like to know just so that I'm aware. I don't necessarily think my company is doing this but it would still be great if there was some kind of a way to at least know. It's a given that any company you work for has full and complete access to your work email and private Slack workspace messages(DM or private channel). Same goes for MS Teams or anything else similarly paid for and/or run by the company. I would especially like know if they were doing something like: - keystroke logging - taking screenshots at intervals - process monitoring - deep packet inspection
- downerending 7y ago
  Until they mention of it (or you hear of it), it doesn't much matter. Once they do, leave.
redm 7y ago
Upwork has a system to automatically capture screenshots while a user is on the "clock". While we never request this functionality, some people enable it. I found it interesting to browse, however, I found it distracts from the ultimate goal, work product. It can also breed distrust, i.e. instead of looking at what your co-workers/team gets done, you start asking questions like, why is this person doing that. My point is, it's counterproductive. What we found was very product was goal setting and work product review at regular intervals. I.e. once a week evaluate the code quality and velocity of work. What we found was if it's good, it's almost always good, and if it's bad, its bad from the start and doesn't really improve.
duxup 7y ago
Human to human communication is such a better way to do it. We've adjusted our "standups" (I say it with quotes as our standups are pretty informal compared to what some folks describe) to include folks who usually weren't included (president of company) before and done a better job of tracking time on our own. That seems to make everyone happier... granted we're a small shop. There's probably a "bad boss / culture" thing here for folks who are desperate to do these things... are just going to do it and don't know / care to do better / have no clue how to really grok productivity and the inherent vagaries of it. Everyone else is just chugging along without these issues.
alexellisuk 7y ago
Is anyone working at a tech company where this is happening to you? I can't imagine the stress this would cause someone. If anyone is considering leaving the enterprise, and going freelance. Think twice, especially in the current climate - https://medium.com/@alexellisuk/what-you-need-to-know-before-you-go-freelance-259bd9d4b2d1 https://medium.com/@alexellisuk/what-you-need-to-know-before...
Loughla 7y ago
My institution tried to implement "productivity" software during the shutdown. I, and one other director, were the sole voices of reason, saying "this is a waste of money and time when we're busy enough as it is". We apparently were persuasive, they cancelled that buy. Then, once we were out, executive leadership tried to implement a 'task tracking' timesheet to be filled out by every employee. I took a HUGE chance on my career. I e-mailed all leadership and the board, explaining that implementing this was needless busy work. If we were working remotely, and the expectations were that the same things were getting done, implementing something like this and NOT when we were physically present would just prove that 'management' at our institution meant control of people's lives. We're higher education, and everyone is slightly anti-establishment in some fashion. This put the hair up on everyone's neck. One hellstorm of an e-mail thread later, and they killed that form, too. Management just needs to realize that people fuck around at work. It is not important whether that is at physical work, or remote. It will happen. What is important is that you evaluate the work done, and, unless you're working on billable hours, evaluate whether there are more efficient ways to do business. If you enter those conversations honestly, then your people will have just enough time to fuck around, while still being super productive. Being human is part of work. Fucking around with the people you spend a lot of time with is part of being human.
void445be54d48a 7y ago
I can not imagine wanting to work for someplace that doesn't have the infrastructure to allow for remote work. I'm lucky enough to be able to be choosy about who receives my labor and it's unfortunate that some people have to be relegate to working for bosses who fail to connect with people on a basic interpersonal level. It would be a good outcome for allowing remote work to become a new normal. Give the workers the option. You rely on them and your boss job is meaningless without them.
codr7 7y ago
Is this really a war they want to start, considering the people they're messing with were often hired for their computer skills?
staflow 7y ago
This is mildly infuriating, I’d quit on the spot because of 1) dignity, I’m not a slave 2) this is illegal in most jurisdictions 3) this shit means trust between employer-employee is non-existant in both directions, that’s not a way to get any decent work done
5cott0 7y ago
butts in seats equals results
bachmeier 7y ago
Here's a crazy idea. Look at the worker's output. "Keeping tabs" on your workers doesn't tell you anything about the bottom line. The worker's output does. Can't determine the worker's output? Then you have much bigger problems than remote workers taking a nap in the afternoon.
ChuckMcM 7y ago
I found this article pretty funny, but not in the way intended. Here is a tip for managers (new and experienced out there): If you can't tell by their work product if your people are working or not, then you have a much bigger problem than what they are doing on their computer when you aren't looking. My experience as a new manager was pretty chaotic. I knew it was my job to lead my team to get something done but between telling them to get something done, and it being done, how could I know that they were working on it? It drove me nuts for a while so I asked a friend who had been a manager for while what they did and the answer surprised me in its simplicity, it was "How much time do you give people to do something, and did they do it?" The secret was having something that was unambiguously measurable as "done" and establishing that expectation at the beginning. These days I'll say to the team "When we are done, these things will be true ..." and list off the set of things we can say are true to indicate completion. I'll also note them in my notebook so that I can track them over time. The whole team knows what the exit criteria are so everyone knows if we're done or not. Once you get to know your team better you can add incentive things, so that conversation would sound more like, "The minimum we have to do to insure this is done are x, y, and z. If we can also do p, q, or r it will have this additional positive effect." It also means I can go to a team member at a 1:1 and say, "Ok, I'd like you to take x, what needs to be true for you to be able to say that x is true?" Which encourages them to break up the problem into smaller bits. If you have weekly 1:1s with people then you can check in on the status of their smaller bits, toward making the larger bits true. You always know who is doing work and who is under performing or needs help. For more service type teams (like IT or SRE) you measure things like "our backlog has not grown over the last 30 days" or "the median time to resolve tickets is less than 24 hrs" etc. The key is you can measure it, and the measurement is not subjective. Managers who need "spyware" to figure out if there folks are working or not need to be replaced with managers who know how to manage.
playeren 7y ago
As someone who has recently seen a lot of freelance work as a "Remote Coach" for companies who aren't used to remote teams, I have the following observation: If you have trouble managing remote teams, you're likely not great at managing teams in general. The largest part of my calls were not about remote specific topics, but rather general management topics like result-oriented management vs time management and how trust and alignment is foundational for motivation. Not surprising in hindsight, but due to selection bias from working remotely for many years now, I'm used to companies who don't require spyware to get results from their team, and was quite taken aback at first.
legulere 7y ago
Of course they would. The modern work environment is as much about control as it is about money, if not even more. Graeber goes a bit into this topic in his book bullshit jobs.
hidiegomariani 7y ago
Paywalled
tehjoker 7y ago
If your boss is doing this to you, you need a union. The economy is crashing, while you need a paycheck, you still have a lot of power. The bosses are feeling extremely threatened right now.
cookie_monsta 7y ago
I would like to see a study of the productivity drain of having to have someone interpret all this extra data. Who looks at all the screenshots and keystrokes and logins to decide if they're kosher? It seems ridiculous and meaningless. A manager in another department has sent a spreadsheet around for WFHers to fill in what they do hour by hour. Aside from the relentless mocking that the guy has received behind the scenes, does anybody believe that he'll be reading all that and gaining useful insights? I think that assumptions on how people are going to act unsupervised are a great window on how the person making those assumptions would act in those circumstances.
fizixer 7y ago
What if a remote employee makes one room available in their home for full monitoring, camera, audio, whatever? If the employee is not in the room, that's like a break. Employers monitor cubicles in offices. Would it be worse if the are allowed to monitor one room in the house of a remote employee? Feel free to discuss. Pros? cons? privacy issues? any other other thoughts, comments.
Miner49er 7y ago
I wonder if the companies who make these products use their own product on their employees? I can't imagine them not (hard to sell a product you don't even use), but on the otherhand, it would be especially insulting as an employee to be developing the very tool that is being used to spy on you.
PeterStuer 7y ago
“It’s not because of lack of trust,” Miller said, who compared the software to banks using security cameras. “It’s because it’s imprudent not to do it.” Puke!
ssss11 7y ago
Ugh I sat at a desk in front of our CIO once (I was service desk). I wasnt too concerned but boy was it didtracting! I couldnt see him so he could have been watching me all day, or just doing his work. The bottom line is it made me more stressed, lowered my productivity and I got VERY good at flipping between our asset database, ticketing tool and email.
jacquesm 7y ago
If you need spy software to get an idea of your colleagues' productivity you've already failed on several levels.
philjohn 7y ago
And the old adage of "measure output, not input" comes to the fore again. If you don't trust your staff to do good work when you're not looking, you hired the wrong people. On the other hand, if productivity is within acceptable limits then why the need for monitoring in the first place?
verylittlemeat 7y ago
This thread is a funny coincidence. I was looking at mice to buy yesterday and came across this thing [0]. It's a dongle to make it look like your cursor moved because so many corporate laptops are locked down and it cant be done in software. People use them for everything from keeping the screen on to avoid going afk on work hours. [0] https://www.amazon.com/WiebeTech-Programmable-Mouse-Jiggler-MJ-3/dp/B00MTZY7Y4 https://www.amazon.com/WiebeTech-Programmable-Mouse-Jiggler-...
timwaagh 7y ago
honestly, if i were a manager and stuff wasn't getting done I would want to see what was going on. And that's a pretty common situation when people are implementing complex things like software.
SN76477 7y ago
If you do not trust people then why did you hire them?
zelon88 7y ago
I got hit with something similar the other day. The funny part is; I have systems in place to document everything I do as part of compliance. Plus it just makes my job easier. There's nothing worse than solving the same problem twice. Lately my employer has been so on edge they want me to document the work I'm doing. So basically they want me to perform some work, document that for compliance purposes, and then document that I worked and documented it again just so someone can read it in their inbox instead of the self serve help desk. It's insanity.
haydonchurchill 7y ago
Is this really that bad? A little creepy I guess. But with remote work, you do want to have at least some system in place to make sure people are actually working. At my business we all track our hours (me included) and the app takes screenshots of the screen every 15 minutes. It's really in case there is a problem. Not like I have time to check it / watch my employees work. It's more of an invisible system that keeps people honest. Plus it gives me peace of mind so I don't have to worry if people are working or not. I think it helps me micromanage less.
mcv 7y ago
My workplace has been very reasonable about this. They were early to move to working from home, and simply accepted that it would hurt productivity. And yet the first remote-working sprint from my team has been incredibly productive. Less distraction from meetings and big lunches together, perhaps. I do miss the direct contact with my team mates, and we can't have the spontaneous brainstorming/whiteboard sessions we used to have, so we do need to figure out how to do those remotely.
pcvarmint 7y ago
Ironic that Bloomberg is reporting it, since Bloomberg spied on clients, and spied on employees' computers 30 years ago.

472 points by chatmasta 7y ago

PSA for businesses: how about instead of spying on the deadweight you fire them and reward the productive employees. There are tons of work from home employees (who normally work from home) who are 10x more productive than the in-office ones, because they realize the value of what they have. It's too bad most people will only work when you're looking over their shoulder, but lets not keep that on life-support with spyware. Let it die and usher in a time when people actually take the initiative to do their work.

asveikau 7y ago
I think deciding which human being to label as "dead weight" and overfocus on that question is on the same path to paranoia as thinking you need to monitor them all closely. How many times have you seen contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses mislabelled as "dead weight"? I think it happens pretty often, especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures.
- Loughla 7y ago
  >especially in performance-review-obsessed cultures. I can't wait for performance reviews to just die. I'm middle-management at my institution, and I see my job as making sure my teams have what they need and are insulated from the bullshit enough to get done what they need to get done, how they see best to do it. And then performance reviews happen. I can't do their jobs. I don't want to do their jobs. That's the reason I hire them instead of doing it myself. How can I tell them they're not doing a good job or what to improve on? Their metrics are met, their clients are being appropriately serviced. WHY??? Because we need a way to quantify human performance when we have to downsize. That's why. It's dark, but I'm convinced that's what is at the root of corporate performance reviews across the US.
- readme 7y ago
  >contributing employees who are not understood by their bosses Indeed, this is a problem too. In that case I'd point the finger at the boss who can't recognize what is and isn't a valuable contribution. None of this is 100% exact science, but have you worked with someone who did nothing but somehow kept their job, no problem, not even an eyebrow raised? I have, and these types of people won't last if the performance metric changes from time in seat to work produced.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    People are just naturally biased towards rewarding effort though. It feels really uncomfortable to label someone who gets into work before you, leaves work after you, and isn't ever seen to be doing obvious goof-off things as "dead weight"
  - asveikau 7y ago
    Most of the time when I have seen that situation, ignoring for a moment that my own assessment of the situation is also subjective, the person keeps the job despite there being performance review culture in place.
- VectorLock 7y ago
  Especially in these times anybody who indicates a decline in performance might be having serious personal issues that you might want to approach with empathy rather than cutting them off like a gangrenous limb.
- amznthrowaway5 7y ago
  For all the rage against algorithm programming interviews you see here on HN, at least those interviews are far more objective than perf and promo reviews.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

xwdv 7y ago

The more spy software a boss buys, the more insecure they really are about themselves.

sambull 7y ago
Well its a good litmus to know where not to work. Better knowing with such a straight forward method.
- mc32 7y ago
  With a quarter of the workforce furloughed or RIFed I’m not sure most people will have the option to be choosy.
52-6F-62 7y ago
It may sound like a basic platitude, but I think you're correct. I feel fortunate to work with people who want to treat each other like adults. That's been my managers' perspectives, and it's well appreciated.

wayoutthere 7y ago

Mark Cuban got it right last week when he said that the way companies treat their employees over the next few months will define their brand for the next several decades. Companies insisting on this level of control are simply adding cost now and making employee retention difficult for when we end up coming out of this. If your company can't handle ground-level employees having some autonomy in their work, then your business model isn't likely to survive. Besides, given the extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be equally productive to being in the office. In addition to the fact that some people just don't perform as well without the structure of an office (I'm personally one of them), we've got kids to take care of, extra chores to do, and the general anxiety coming from the media. People are not going to be 100% right now, so the need to build a work culture that can support that reality is more important now than ever.

A4ET8a8uTh0 7y ago
I am going to add anecdote from my little corner. Last week all of our team ( 10+ people total ). Not terrible and it happened before so we were good. All of a sudden, vendor suffered a breach. We went into disaster mode and survived the day. That day was Friday. In its infinite wisdom senior management tried to bring one volunteer on a Sunday to the office so that they can manually do the things we did remote on Friday. No one volunteered, because it was a retarded idea. It was clear they wanted a live body to yell at. Friday was that kind of day. They eventually backed off. But senior management here is old and unwilling to let go of control they thought they had so far. Out of completeness, my pc is riddled with control crap running in background often slowing me down. Some of it makes sense ( why are you moving all this data ? ; why are looking up marijuana dispensary address ). Most of it does not fall under reasonable category.. So what people do? They adapt. They know their work pcs are riddled with crap so they spend ridiculous amount of time on their pocket computers instead.. It is a weird arms race.
CPLX 7y ago
> If your company can't handle ground-level employees having some autonomy in their work, then your business model isn't likely to survive. > Besides, given the extraordinary circumstances I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be equally productive to being in the office. It's worth noting that you're describing a very specific subset of the world of employment, namely people who work with some degree of autonomy in an office setting. I would be shocked if even half of the American workforce primarily works in an "at a desk" or equivalent type position.

mc32 7y ago

Two things: Productivity is going to plunge no matter what, with the possible exception of singles who don’t have roommates. There is no way that during an ad hoc and unorganized push to work remote (though necessary in this circumstance) can result in good productivity, monitoring or not. Under the best of circumstances it would take months for a mass of people to adjust and be productive. The apex for open office design was reached and we’ll go back to something more normal. It’s funny people derided “cubicle farms” but we’re more or less okay being in a “bullpen” like setting cuz it was sold as being counter cultural and cool.

fermienrico 7y ago
Just the movement of people in my peripheral vision alone is distracting. Then there is the chatter and constant interruptions (which I welcome in a friendly way but deep down under I don't want to be interrupted). Cubicles with a door would be great. The ceiling can be open and have sun light coming in. Maybe the walls should be white and there should be a lamp of my own (for notes).
prostheticvamp 7y ago
I think less than 5% of comments on open-office design, that I have ever seen, were positive. Who are the people you are describing as being “sold”?
- strict9 7y ago
  Managers and executives. 1. Cheaper rent because you need less space 2. Easier to look over shoulders and on to computer monitors Managers (especially product managers) delude themselves into thinking this spurs collaboration and creativity and productivity.
  - robk 7y ago
    As a former pm I can't think of a single colleague who loved open plan. We at best tolerated but I think every one of us would have been a happy recipient of an office!
  - 7y ago

sbarre 7y ago

This happened to me years ago. I was put in an empty office at the opposite end from my boss, and because he couldn't walk up behind me to see me working, he secretly installed a program on my computer that took a screenshot every 30 seconds (or so?). I quickly noticed that my computer was hitching regularly (when the screenshot was taken - this was in the late 90s BTW), and so investigated my computer on a day when he wasn't in the office. After finding what looked like malware on my computer, I checked with other colleagues - and the other owner - and no one had any idea what it was. So we put the office network on lockdown, halted everything and started the process of rotating all our passwords and scanning every computer in the office looking for signs of intrusion, etc.. We lost a solid day of productivity for everyone, and when we finally reached the other boss, he owned up to what he had done, and the other owner - who had spent the day in a panic - wasn't thrilled about it to say the least. The irony was that I was probably the most productive person in that office (in my humble opinion).

gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
Where I live what he did is a fairly serious criminal offence.
- adwww 7y ago
  Waves in European...
  - usui 7y ago
    What does this mean?
    - cheeze 7y ago
      adwww is implying that this would be illegal in EU (unsure if that is true or not) and is "greeting" the other poster saying "hey, I'm European too"
      - adwww 7y ago

lmilcin 7y ago

Two sides of the story. One: people that are doing this are likely to have already been bad bosses. I don't think this changes anything. Two: I work for a large bank. My director, on a town hall, told us they do understand that not everybody will be able to focus on the job as before and that they expect us to spend less time actually working and be unavailable more often. Then he URGED us to actually do so. To take time off, to deal with family problems first. He wanted us to know it is ok and that they will allow it without deducting pay so that we don't have to worry about our salaries. I am pretty sure there will be people that will abuse this. You know what? People who do this probably have already been bad employees so not much is lost. Most people I know to be good employees feel very happy about this as a convenient option and do whatever they can to use it as little as possible. I see this as an investment that is most likely return in other ways, employee happiness, retention, engagement from the staff you really want engaged.

wayoutthere 7y ago
#2 is super important for folks who aren't used to working remotely to take to heart. It's really easy to feel the (self-imposed) pressure to be available all the time and feel anxious because you're not doing work for 8 hours straight -- that's the road to burnout. In reality most people only do a couple hours of "heads down" work on a normal day; removing the office politics and moving to a more asynchronous communication style simply makes obvious how little "work" actually gets done at most offices.
cortesoft 7y ago
Yeah, I think bosses who freak out about people not being productive while working from home underestimate how much people can avoid being productive while physically at work.
- lmilcin 7y ago
  Exactly. Wrong mental model. Your best bet is to hire/make/keep people interested in being productive. When this is lost there isn't going much you can do to improve productivity. Keeping employee chained to their desks will not magically make things get done. This is so naive. I wonder how humanity landed in the situation where half of all managers don't get the first thing about managing people.

sheeshkebab 7y ago

“ Frost declined to comment on whether Garrabrants, one of America’s top-paid bank CEOs in 2018, is subject to the same monitoring when he works from home.” Tells it all pretty much...

karatestomp 7y ago
A lot of “very important” employee-control bullshit suddenly doesn’t matter when the person in question is in a C-level or board position. See also: piss tests, limits on doing other work while with an employer. Very important you’re sober as a judge and giving your company your undivided productive output—unless you’re CEO, then, a weekend habit or two and you’re involved with four companies at once in some capacity? Sure, go nuts.
- rodgerd 7y ago
  Anyone who hasn't read "Bullshit Jobs" really should. It's a book for the times.
- jedberg 7y ago
  "It would be a security/compliance/legal violation to screenshot the CxO's screen because they might be working on something materially important to our stock price and we can't risk someone in IT seeing that or leaking it".

czbond 7y ago

A manager wanting to use spy software is overtly telling the world and themselves they are a poor manager.

code4tee 7y ago

We had a bad manager at my last company who really wanted to do this sort of thing. I said to him “So this is an interesting proposal... if we install this software then I can save on management costs by replacing your position with this spyware?” He never brought it up again and we later just got rid of him completely. Micromanagement and this sort of spying rarely builds high performing teams. Managing worker productivity is one thing but blatant spying is a sign of much deeper problems with a company and its management. I’ve generally found a fairly strong inverse correlation between how good a manager is and the amount of paranoia they have on their teams not doing what they should. Good managers build great teams and then trust them.

readme 7y ago
micromanagement is life support for low performers
- ben_w 7y ago
  For those doing it or for those receiving it?
  - jgust 7y ago
    yes
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- jerf 7y ago
  That is true, and I've seen it deployed to good effect... but it's a knob you should turn when it becomes evident it is needed for a particular person, not something you just nail to "maximum" for all employees.
duxup 7y ago
I ran into this once: Another team (team A) needed a lot of help and my team (Team B) was 'similar'. So we were brought on to help despite Team A's objections that we surely couldn't do the job. So we went to work and were out performing them from day 1. Team A's management was not happy and was sure we were somehow 'gaming the system'. They had all sorts of ways and theories on how Team B must be doing it and convinced another layer of management to get someone from the outside to investigate. They investigated and found the only folks 'gaming the system' (they were doing a lot of underhanded things to manipulate KPIs and etc).... were Team A. Sometimes the folks out there throwing a lot of shade and being excessively suspicious only think of those things about others ... because they would do it and they assume everyone else would too. With unfounded accusations and etc, I've found that to be true time and time again.

zer00eyz 7y ago

I have moved from "solutions architect" to "WFH consultant" at the behest of my clients. The problem I am seeing is that many managers have NO idea how their employees actually work. If you take your average MacDonalds manager they can (mostly) work every station in the joint and then know how to do MORE things. Your average corporate middle manager has NO idea what their staff does or how. To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed. I have one client who wants to snapshot staff at their computers, and another who is ready to cut middle management fat... we live in interesting times.

mmhsieh 7y ago
it will be all too obvious soon who is going to get cut now that productivity is going to be much more clearly measured.
draw_down 7y ago
The old maxim about the low tide exposing who isn't wearing any trunks is just as true this time, but way more so. In a situation where this quarantine could last months longer, what good is some manager whose value proposition was that they schmoozed around the office all day? See ya.
aidenn0 7y ago
> To be quite honest, most of these middle managers are not only at a loss as to what they should be doing but are also dealing with the isolation far worse than "staff". I have come to realize that a lot of their time was spent on social aspects of the workplace and they have been removed. I know exactly the affect you are describing but it just seems so backwards to me because this is the point at which the social aspects of work become more important. Coworkers aren't going to be informally communicating the way they used to so managers have way more "social" work to do.

balls187 7y ago

This may be hard for those of us in tech to comprehend; not everyone can function without having a boss to keep them 100% accountable. In 2004, I worked for a startup and we had beer in the fridge. We'd have an occasional afternoon where we would grab them. No big deal. Most startups I worked at embraced a similar attitude. Finally I worked for a company that went a step further and had beer on tap, but had rules, no beer until 5p M-Th, and 4p Friday. It was foreign to me, but understood that in other divisions, the types of employees (like inside sales) were essentially entry-level roles. Many of us in industry are used to flex hours, and the ability to remotely (including WFH), that we forget that for many others, it's novel. Seeing "asses in chairs" was a proxy for diagnosing productivity deficiencies, and bosses thrust into this new paradigm of working haven't necessarily picked up the skill sets to effectively manage remote teams.

Loughla 7y ago
I've read this comment like 10 times in the last hour. I get what you're saying, but it misses the point, I think. >entry-level roles. >used to flex hours, and the ability to remotely (including WFH), that we forget that for many others, it's novel. That's the point of management and leadership. You take new people and make sure they have what they need to get the job done. For most people, that 'what they need' is a literal statement of "I know you have access to beer, and I know you just graduated college, but don't get hammered on company time" or "I know you're 22, but flex hours means your work still gets done". If you don't say it out loud, and assume people will pick it up via osmosis, you're a bad leader. >bosses thrust into this new paradigm of working haven't necessarily picked up the skill sets to effectively manage remote As someone who has never worked remotely, and manages a team very much focused on human interaction (higher ed), and who is now 100% remote, I need to know what you mean by this. Other than needing to automatically over-communicate everything (by my definition), how is remote different than in-person?
- balls187 7y ago
  > If you don't say it out loud, and assume people will pick it up via osmosis, you're a bad leader. To some extent, I agree, though it largely depends on the role. Setting expectations clearly is important as a leader, as is providing clear, timely feedback when expectations aren't met. In college, it's a wake up call to students, because professors do not provide followup the way grade school teachers do. You are given your work and expected to turn it in. For engineers, it's largely as you said--you're an adult. Act like an adult. If you're getting hammered on company time, we'll have a discussion about it, and why it's happening. On the flip-side, I had a house-hold employee who dressed completely inappropriately for her job. I wrote her up about it and sent her information (guidelines) around appropriate dress code for her role. > How is remote different than in-person? Physical presence can correlate with productivity. That may be the sole signal that triggers a boss to look at actual productivity metrics. There are other approximations, such as responsiveness to communications (email, slack etc) as well. But I posit the leaders who are spying on employees have trained their intuition to be based on physical presence. Without that, they're scared. I follow the model that the team owns their deliverables, and delivery dates, with input from me. I advocate shorter deliverables or checkpoints to uncover issues with estimates sooner, but ultimately leave it up to the team to execute. If something isn't delivered on time, I as a leader address the underlying causes. My philosophy as a boss is "You have a lot of flexibility. Just get your work done when you say you will." And not everyone has the maturity to work in such an environment. I hope that explains my feelings more clearly.

state_less 7y ago

No, just no. If a boss can't communicate deliverables and verify that these are getting finished, they are too incompetent to manage their domain. They shouldn't be scraping personal information off screencaps, video or audio feeds. This doesn't even seem like it ought to be legal. Workers are there to do a job, not have every personal detail monitored and tracked. Should the show password feature be turned off in UIs given how much sensitive information shows up on a screen? How much control of people's lives can a free society hand over to shareholders before it's no longer considered humane?

sneak 7y ago
> They shouldn't be scraping personal information off screencaps I agree, but so should the employee not be accessing any personal information on company screens.
- state_less 7y ago
  Employees do access personal information on company screens. If I check my healthcare plan or retirement plan, use the show password feature, look for another job outside my managers group, etc... This is to say nothing of a normal employer who doesn't mind breaks if you're getting work done. I'd sooner try my luck living in the forest with the other animals than work under such surveillance. I feel sorry for those who are in a rough spot and feel pressed into this sort of thing.
  - sneak 7y ago
    > Employees do access personal information on company screens. I think that this was more of an issue back when every person on staff didn't have their own personal wireless touchscreen computer on them at all times. Now it's just a training issue: company hardware for company tasks, personal hardware for personal tasks.
    - teddyh 7y ago
      But what if they use company electricity to charge their personal devices?

kstenerud 7y ago

Eventually someone will come up with a site that lists which companies install spyware on worker's computers, after which there will be a shaming period, and then only the scummiest companies will continue with such a policy.

notlukesky 7y ago

Is there a map of where this is legal and illegal?

pp19dd 7y ago
Think this is uncharted territory and laws are probably irreconcilably disparate from state to state, from country to country. In the U.S., it's likely that the most consistently established legal framework revolves around recorded telephone conversations, the one-party consent laws and two-party consent laws, of which some contain mentions and subsets of 'electronic communications.' "Recording conversations in all 50 states chart" (PDF): https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING-CONVERSATIONS-CHART.pdf https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RECORDING... Wikipedia has a list of countries with some laws, but, it's a very shy list. List of two-party consent laws in the U.S. is very short.

freepor 7y ago

“Panic buying” is the new word for “purchases I condemn”

austincheney 7y ago

Here is the key part of the article: > Straight-up Big Brother, perhaps, but it’s perfectly legal for businesses to keep an unblinking eye on employees as long as they disclose they’re doing it. It is the companies equipment, network (on their side of the VPN), time, and so forth. That being said it is legally fine so long as they disclose they are doing so. If they monitor in ways that have not been disclosed they risk of a class action lawsuit should that knowledge be leaked to employees. Let's look at a far more extreme example: US Army. US Army is not allowed to monitor user activity in that way and all users of Army networks are made aware of this. Users must also sign their agreement to an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) before gaining access to the network. The Army example is more extreme because the Army owns the computers, the network, and all physical network infrastructure that companies typically lease to ISPs. The Army has the ability to monitor user activity in ways that companies cannot and yet the Army does not do so because it's illegal without a probable cause search warrant or command directive with legal authorization. For example, computers with an Army image monitor for attachment of mass storage devices and moment a phone or hard drive is plugged in the network administrator is immediately notified, the local network switch is automatically dropped from the network, and a report is automatically drafted for the respective violating unit. The Army can monitor for that because it is a violation of the AUP users signed, but they cannot monitor any associated content without probably cause and an AUP violation on its own is not probable cause. I have heard, on the other hand, the Air Force monitors absolutely everything because they require their users to sign a consent to monitoring directive to gain access to the network.

rodgerd 7y ago
> It is the companies equipment, network (on their side of the VPN), time, and so forth. That being said it is legally fine so long as they disclose they are doing so. Is the employee's house company property? Are the other people living there company property?
- austincheney 7y ago
  Then use your personal computer.

mjasinski5 7y ago

I wrote an article regarding this topic few days ago: https://medium.com/@mjasinski5/how-companies-failed-a-trust-exam-by-coronavirus-96b1843093a3 https://medium.com/@mjasinski5/how-companies-failed-a-trust-... The same its happening in Poland and probably all over the world. Companies do not trust their employees.. and it doesnt end on buying spy software.

k__ 7y ago

The boss of my girlfriend did this even when they were on-site. I think such people should be forbidden from founding/leading a company. Nationalise that thing and be done with it.

Yizahi 7y ago

Aww, that's so cute, a humans making around x500 to x1000 more money as a median humans in their companies are crying about "unfaaair". Cry some more, @#$%^&*. PS: somehow my 1000+ ppl international company manages to work from home and deliver results without authoritarian tools.

salawat 7y ago

My recommendation: A) Audit your base machine for any suspicious processes. Most of the time, something will stick out. For Windows boxes, pay attention to the Startup/Autorun sections of the Windows Registry/Group Policy. On *Nix boxes, either unit or init scripts; audit your launched plists. B) If you do suspect information exfiltration/monitoring; cripple/subvert the sensors/information stream. Exact details will vary depending on the nature of the spyware. A hardware bug is harder to do deal with than a software one, and some forms of software bugging are more difficult to circumvent than others. C) If it is really overt and obnoxious; organize with coworkers. The only thing that'll eventually get the message across to unscrupulous and invasive employers is collective organized resistance. One or two or up to 100 depending on size they may not give a damn, but when half the workforce is up in arms, there will have to be a carefully considered response. D) Always be ready to leave. Seriously. Particularly in today's day and age. I don't think it's natural at first, as we all at some level I think hope that our employer has some intrinsic loyalty toward us as an employee; but that really isn't the case at all culturally anymore. Don't let it hold you back from doing your best, but always keep in mind they are making more off you than you them; otherwise it isn't a business that's going to be staying around for very long.

Loughla 7y ago
I think 'D' only applies if (1) you work in a privileged sector, or (2) we're not expecting a 25%+ unemployment rate.

cameronfraser 7y ago

Where I work there is less focus on micromanaging people's time and more focus on results. Having your activity micromanaged at that level is mentally exhausting. When I was in college and had no skills whatsoever I used to do Lionbridge/Leapforce which had you do all kinds of stuff like rank search results, check videos for nudity, etc. They had an extension that would monitor all your activity and if you stopped and got distracted it would impact your rating/health and you could eventually be fired (not sure if firing is the right word its a gig type thing). IMO this is very nerve wracking and not mentally healthy for workers to experience. Treat people like adults and on average they will act like adults. You will always have underperformers regardless of whether you are micromanaging their time or not. Sometimes I want to take a break to play with my dog or decompress after a long meeting. Everyone should have the same right to do so. Ironically, archaic notions about micromanaging workers time works against employers more than working for them.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

"Panic-buying" is buying something with the intent of securing it before the resource runs out. Given the near infinite scalability of software, the phrase seems poorly applied here.

wayneftw 7y ago
I’m pretty sure it can also mean that you’re buying something that you don’t need because you’re in a panic. Where did you get the official definition?
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  > Panic buying: the action of buying large quantities of a particular product or commodity due to sudden fears of a forthcoming shortage or price increase. https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+panic+buying https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+panic+buying
  - wayneftw 7y ago
    Great! So it actually fits this situation wherein a large quantity of spyware has just been purchased... the price increase being the amount they're paying for their workers productivity.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
      There isn't any evidence this software improves productivity. Also, they aren't purchasing the software because they expect the software to (a) increase in price or (b) become unavailable. So it isn't panic buying.
      - wayneftw 7y ago
        Well if someone is in a panic and they are buying something because of that panic I am going to continue calling that panic buying. I’m sure that the definition or your understanding of that definition will catch up to my forward thinking at some point.

bredren 7y ago

Upwork has largely required contractors to install and run their spy software in order to earn money through their system. Thankfully MacOS Sierra put the kibosh on the capture ability without special permissions. I denied that request and the client never brought it up. I do get why these tools are needed, however I find the use of them counterproductive and creates an adversarial posture between clients and contractors.

throwawaymanbot 7y ago

Since its stressful working from home, this is despicable. There is enough stress on people currently without adding this BS.

flanbiscuit 7y ago

We need a tutorial on how to detect if you're being monitored like this. As an employee I would like to know just so that I'm aware. I don't necessarily think my company is doing this but it would still be great if there was some kind of a way to at least know. It's a given that any company you work for has full and complete access to your work email and private Slack workspace messages(DM or private channel). Same goes for MS Teams or anything else similarly paid for and/or run by the company. I would especially like know if they were doing something like: - keystroke logging - taking screenshots at intervals - process monitoring - deep packet inspection

downerending 7y ago
Until they mention of it (or you hear of it), it doesn't much matter. Once they do, leave.

redm 7y ago

Upwork has a system to automatically capture screenshots while a user is on the "clock". While we never request this functionality, some people enable it. I found it interesting to browse, however, I found it distracts from the ultimate goal, work product. It can also breed distrust, i.e. instead of looking at what your co-workers/team gets done, you start asking questions like, why is this person doing that. My point is, it's counterproductive. What we found was very product was goal setting and work product review at regular intervals. I.e. once a week evaluate the code quality and velocity of work. What we found was if it's good, it's almost always good, and if it's bad, its bad from the start and doesn't really improve.

duxup 7y ago

Human to human communication is such a better way to do it. We've adjusted our "standups" (I say it with quotes as our standups are pretty informal compared to what some folks describe) to include folks who usually weren't included (president of company) before and done a better job of tracking time on our own. That seems to make everyone happier... granted we're a small shop. There's probably a "bad boss / culture" thing here for folks who are desperate to do these things... are just going to do it and don't know / care to do better / have no clue how to really grok productivity and the inherent vagaries of it. Everyone else is just chugging along without these issues.

alexellisuk 7y ago

Is anyone working at a tech company where this is happening to you? I can't imagine the stress this would cause someone. If anyone is considering leaving the enterprise, and going freelance. Think twice, especially in the current climate - https://medium.com/@alexellisuk/what-you-need-to-know-before-you-go-freelance-259bd9d4b2d1 https://medium.com/@alexellisuk/what-you-need-to-know-before...

Loughla 7y ago

My institution tried to implement "productivity" software during the shutdown. I, and one other director, were the sole voices of reason, saying "this is a waste of money and time when we're busy enough as it is". We apparently were persuasive, they cancelled that buy. Then, once we were out, executive leadership tried to implement a 'task tracking' timesheet to be filled out by every employee. I took a HUGE chance on my career. I e-mailed all leadership and the board, explaining that implementing this was needless busy work. If we were working remotely, and the expectations were that the same things were getting done, implementing something like this and NOT when we were physically present would just prove that 'management' at our institution meant control of people's lives. We're higher education, and everyone is slightly anti-establishment in some fashion. This put the hair up on everyone's neck. One hellstorm of an e-mail thread later, and they killed that form, too. Management just needs to realize that people fuck around at work. It is not important whether that is at physical work, or remote. It will happen. What is important is that you evaluate the work done, and, unless you're working on billable hours, evaluate whether there are more efficient ways to do business. If you enter those conversations honestly, then your people will have just enough time to fuck around, while still being super productive. Being human is part of work. Fucking around with the people you spend a lot of time with is part of being human.

void445be54d48a 7y ago

I can not imagine wanting to work for someplace that doesn't have the infrastructure to allow for remote work. I'm lucky enough to be able to be choosy about who receives my labor and it's unfortunate that some people have to be relegate to working for bosses who fail to connect with people on a basic interpersonal level. It would be a good outcome for allowing remote work to become a new normal. Give the workers the option. You rely on them and your boss job is meaningless without them.

codr7 7y ago

Is this really a war they want to start, considering the people they're messing with were often hired for their computer skills?

staflow 7y ago

This is mildly infuriating, I’d quit on the spot because of 1) dignity, I’m not a slave 2) this is illegal in most jurisdictions 3) this shit means trust between employer-employee is non-existant in both directions, that’s not a way to get any decent work done

5cott0 7y ago

butts in seats equals results

bachmeier 7y ago

Here's a crazy idea. Look at the worker's output. "Keeping tabs" on your workers doesn't tell you anything about the bottom line. The worker's output does. Can't determine the worker's output? Then you have much bigger problems than remote workers taking a nap in the afternoon.

ChuckMcM 7y ago

I found this article pretty funny, but not in the way intended. Here is a tip for managers (new and experienced out there): If you can't tell by their work product if your people are working or not, then you have a much bigger problem than what they are doing on their computer when you aren't looking. My experience as a new manager was pretty chaotic. I knew it was my job to lead my team to get something done but between telling them to get something done, and it being done, how could I know that they were working on it? It drove me nuts for a while so I asked a friend who had been a manager for while what they did and the answer surprised me in its simplicity, it was "How much time do you give people to do something, and did they do it?" The secret was having something that was unambiguously measurable as "done" and establishing that expectation at the beginning. These days I'll say to the team "When we are done, these things will be true ..." and list off the set of things we can say are true to indicate completion. I'll also note them in my notebook so that I can track them over time. The whole team knows what the exit criteria are so everyone knows if we're done or not. Once you get to know your team better you can add incentive things, so that conversation would sound more like, "The minimum we have to do to insure this is done are x, y, and z. If we can also do p, q, or r it will have this additional positive effect." It also means I can go to a team member at a 1:1 and say, "Ok, I'd like you to take x, what needs to be true for you to be able to say that x is true?" Which encourages them to break up the problem into smaller bits. If you have weekly 1:1s with people then you can check in on the status of their smaller bits, toward making the larger bits true. You always know who is doing work and who is under performing or needs help. For more service type teams (like IT or SRE) you measure things like "our backlog has not grown over the last 30 days" or "the median time to resolve tickets is less than 24 hrs" etc. The key is you can measure it, and the measurement is not subjective. Managers who need "spyware" to figure out if there folks are working or not need to be replaced with managers who know how to manage.

playeren 7y ago

As someone who has recently seen a lot of freelance work as a "Remote Coach" for companies who aren't used to remote teams, I have the following observation: If you have trouble managing remote teams, you're likely not great at managing teams in general. The largest part of my calls were not about remote specific topics, but rather general management topics like result-oriented management vs time management and how trust and alignment is foundational for motivation. Not surprising in hindsight, but due to selection bias from working remotely for many years now, I'm used to companies who don't require spyware to get results from their team, and was quite taken aback at first.

legulere 7y ago

Of course they would. The modern work environment is as much about control as it is about money, if not even more. Graeber goes a bit into this topic in his book bullshit jobs.

hidiegomariani 7y ago

Paywalled

tehjoker 7y ago

If your boss is doing this to you, you need a union. The economy is crashing, while you need a paycheck, you still have a lot of power. The bosses are feeling extremely threatened right now.

cookie_monsta 7y ago

I would like to see a study of the productivity drain of having to have someone interpret all this extra data. Who looks at all the screenshots and keystrokes and logins to decide if they're kosher? It seems ridiculous and meaningless. A manager in another department has sent a spreadsheet around for WFHers to fill in what they do hour by hour. Aside from the relentless mocking that the guy has received behind the scenes, does anybody believe that he'll be reading all that and gaining useful insights? I think that assumptions on how people are going to act unsupervised are a great window on how the person making those assumptions would act in those circumstances.

fizixer 7y ago

What if a remote employee makes one room available in their home for full monitoring, camera, audio, whatever? If the employee is not in the room, that's like a break. Employers monitor cubicles in offices. Would it be worse if the are allowed to monitor one room in the house of a remote employee? Feel free to discuss. Pros? cons? privacy issues? any other other thoughts, comments.

Miner49er 7y ago

I wonder if the companies who make these products use their own product on their employees? I can't imagine them not (hard to sell a product you don't even use), but on the otherhand, it would be especially insulting as an employee to be developing the very tool that is being used to spy on you.

PeterStuer 7y ago

“It’s not because of lack of trust,” Miller said, who compared the software to banks using security cameras. “It’s because it’s imprudent not to do it.” Puke!

ssss11 7y ago

Ugh I sat at a desk in front of our CIO once (I was service desk). I wasnt too concerned but boy was it didtracting! I couldnt see him so he could have been watching me all day, or just doing his work. The bottom line is it made me more stressed, lowered my productivity and I got VERY good at flipping between our asset database, ticketing tool and email.

jacquesm 7y ago

If you need spy software to get an idea of your colleagues' productivity you've already failed on several levels.

philjohn 7y ago

And the old adage of "measure output, not input" comes to the fore again. If you don't trust your staff to do good work when you're not looking, you hired the wrong people. On the other hand, if productivity is within acceptable limits then why the need for monitoring in the first place?

verylittlemeat 7y ago

This thread is a funny coincidence. I was looking at mice to buy yesterday and came across this thing [0]. It's a dongle to make it look like your cursor moved because so many corporate laptops are locked down and it cant be done in software. People use them for everything from keeping the screen on to avoid going afk on work hours. [0] https://www.amazon.com/WiebeTech-Programmable-Mouse-Jiggler-MJ-3/dp/B00MTZY7Y4 https://www.amazon.com/WiebeTech-Programmable-Mouse-Jiggler-...

timwaagh 7y ago

honestly, if i were a manager and stuff wasn't getting done I would want to see what was going on. And that's a pretty common situation when people are implementing complex things like software.

SN76477 7y ago

If you do not trust people then why did you hire them?

zelon88 7y ago

I got hit with something similar the other day. The funny part is; I have systems in place to document everything I do as part of compliance. Plus it just makes my job easier. There's nothing worse than solving the same problem twice. Lately my employer has been so on edge they want me to document the work I'm doing. So basically they want me to perform some work, document that for compliance purposes, and then document that I worked and documented it again just so someone can read it in their inbox instead of the self serve help desk. It's insanity.

haydonchurchill 7y ago

Is this really that bad? A little creepy I guess. But with remote work, you do want to have at least some system in place to make sure people are actually working. At my business we all track our hours (me included) and the app takes screenshots of the screen every 15 minutes. It's really in case there is a problem. Not like I have time to check it / watch my employees work. It's more of an invisible system that keeps people honest. Plus it gives me peace of mind so I don't have to worry if people are working or not. I think it helps me micromanage less.

mcv 7y ago

My workplace has been very reasonable about this. They were early to move to working from home, and simply accepted that it would hurt productivity. And yet the first remote-working sprint from my team has been incredibly productive. Less distraction from meetings and big lunches together, perhaps. I do miss the direct contact with my team mates, and we can't have the spontaneous brainstorming/whiteboard sessions we used to have, so we do need to figure out how to do those remotely.

pcvarmint 7y ago

Ironic that Bloomberg is reporting it, since Bloomberg spied on clients, and spied on employees' computers 30 years ago.