7 ms·

"criticized as workplace surveillance" makes it sound like it's a matter of subjective option whether or not it really is. It is workplace surveillance objectiv

"criticized as workplace surveillance" makes it sound like it's a matter of subjective option whether or not it really is. It is workplace surveillance objectively, not merely something that can be construed as such in order to criticize. This headline should read "Microsoft apologizes for workplace surveillance feature" (though as someone else pointed out, they didn't actually apologize either).

just-juan-post 6y ago
Yep, that and the mention of an apology in the headline when there is none in the body is enough for me to flag this piece of corporate propaganda.
- kace91 6y ago
  The article is misleading, but the news that the feature has been rolled back is still worth sharing I think. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
- herodoturtle 6y ago
  Are you implying that Microsoft bribed The Guardian? Or are you perhaps saying that the The Guardian have some kind of indirect interest in massaging Microsoft's rollback into an admission of guilt? I'm curious why you suggest it might be corporate propaganda.
YetAnotherNick 6y ago
Is the surveillance part the problem or the scoring of productivity? I am pretty sure most employers have the ability to log information like what was mentioned here. It's just that they don't use it for measuring productivity due to the obvious flaw that it can be hacked if employees know about it. Most companies use this type of information only when the employee is suspect of leaks or misconduct eg Google has used logged data as evidence against Anthony Levandowski of the data he transferred. Slack gives administrators most of the data for the type it was mentioned in the article. Are you sure that your employer hasn't installed any custom software/antivirus in your work device? Likely they have.
- asveikau 6y ago
  > It's just that they don't use it for measuring productivity due to the obvious flaw that it can be hacked if employees know about it. I would think the bigger issue is that there isn't any basis to say that the metrics collected are a realistic capture of productivity. Measuring stuff and understanding measurements is hard, and you don't want to make big and consequential decisions on a bullshit number.
- isodev 6y ago
  I’m absolutely sure. This practice is illegal in the EU. You can’t log stuff unless you get explicit permission from the employee, listing the exact metrics and purposes of the data logged (also things like where and how long it will be stored). It’s baffling that Microsoft thought this was a good idea in the first place.
  - Mauricebranagh 6y ago
    Yes with all the attention being paid to big tech - this is just asking to be thrown under the bus by Amazon and Google, face book etc "we are just honest business man - just look at the extremely creepy shit Microsoft get up to"
  - LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
    If they put it into contract, would it be legal? (I'm not in EU.)
- crpatino 6y ago
  > Most companies use this type of information only when the employee is suspect of leaks or misconduct This opinion based on what? You may not be aware of this management theory called Taylorism, taught around the world in every MBA and undergraduate business program, which spouses tight measurement of worker productivity as a way to achieve "efficiency" (not the naive engineering definition of efficiency you are thinking about, but the maximization of profits/revenue per monetary unit spent on payroll). While it is not the only, or even the most popular, management doctrine around, it is far from uncommon. The shortest stint on my career was at a certain Fortune 500 company. There I was expected to chronometer my coffee and bathroom breaks, as well as all other activities I undertook while on company premises. This as an IT worker (tech support, required programming but no full software development), which is a sort of protected species in terms of the workforce. Since this was self reporting, there was a lot of wiggle room; and I'd even say most of it was not due to employee dishonesty but just fatigue. It is hard to remember to keep score of the exact times when you start any given task when you have urgent and actually productive duties to fulfill, so sometimes you had to give an estimation. But I am sure that company would jump right at the chance to use Office 365's surveillance tools to refine their record keeping, and maybe root out some lying slackers as the icing of the cake.
slg 6y ago
>workplace surveillance How do you define that? I ask because I am guessing people who are angered by this have no idea what data employers can already access. Have you seen the data that most MDM or network monitoring software can provide about employees? That is much more sensitive data than what Microsoft is reporting and I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. The Microsoft stuff seemed intrusive and wrong headed, but odds are if your employer wanted to use that they are also using some much worse stuff too. I might even consider the Microsoft tools helpful as a canary in a coalmine for other bad practices that are much harder to see.
- lukevp 6y ago
  I think the idea with the MS tool is that a nontechnical manager can see these scores and potentially have bias or take action based on how “productive” people are when these metrics are really meaningless for most (except maybe customer service people, but they will already be measured with different tools.) the network and mdm teams’ surveillance is more deep and sensitive, but it’s not likely to be accessible directly to your supervisors.
  - chadlavi 6y ago
    Entirely this.
- syshum 6y ago
  That is classic whataboutism, just like Pointing out the China or North Korea have worse human rights abuse in no way justifies some other nation for abusing peoples rights Simply because companies have other tools for which to spy on their employees does not justify Microsoft adding one more
  - slg 6y ago
    This is not whataboutism because the guilty parties are the same. I'm not saying don't worry about draconian drug laws in the US because China and North Korea are running concentration camps. I am asking why should we focus on Chinese and North Korean drug laws when they are already running concentration camps. The most severe problems deserve the most attention.
iso1631 6y ago
> Microsoft apologizes for workplace surveillance feature How about "Microsoft regrets the bad PR raised by workplace surveillance feature" Or even "Microsoft delighted at PR raised by workplace surveillance feature and wants to continue the publicity"
mortenjorck 6y ago
Additionally frustrating is that the article takes unquestioningly Microsoft's premise that these metrics have value: > But that information could also be seen on a user-by-user basis, potentially allowing managers to identify individual employees who weren’t contributing enough A good manager should identify employees who aren't contributing enough and work with them to understand how to empower them to contribute more. But the way to gauge this is by actually looking at the work they produce; snooping on their computer usage is a poor substitute used by poor managers.
- wsinks 6y ago
  I really like how Slack states all this in their analytics. They give you just enough data to satisfy your craving for making sure people are using the app, and then they mention "message count has no relevance to actual productivity". They definitely stay hard in the platform category.
  - skohan 6y ago
    Depending on the team culture, slack usage might be a counter-indicator for productivity
    - Frost1x 6y ago
      Slack is the most unproductive application I think I've used.
      - claudeganon 6y ago
        I had a job once where the person tasked with training me would only do so over Slack, even though they sat 3 feet in front of me. If I spoke up to ask a question, they would angrily turn around and tell me to message them instead. Needless to say, I quit after 2 weeks.
      - swsieber 6y ago
        What about Jira? Ha ha seriously though, I was on a video call and people heard my laptop fans kick on and thought I was compiling. In reality, I opened Jira.
haberman 6y ago
What is the objective bright line between reasonable observation of an employee and "workplace surveillance"? Is it "workplace surveillance" when you can view the calendar appointments of your coworkers? Or see stats about the changelists submitted, bugs resolved, etc. of each person? Or see their dot when they are viewing a document? Maybe these Microsoft features crossed a threshold of creepiness past which the world should not go. But to act like it's a settled conversation, where right and wrong are so obvious that the issue was agreed upon long ago, does not match with reality in my opinion.
- tj-teej 6y ago
  There's a clear objective difference between judging output vs secretly watching an employee
  - musingsole 6y ago
    Pedantic: Not if your job is acting. But I think that pedantic point hints at something that creates this problem: most jobs have a degree of performance to them (i.e. act out the part). Which is perhaps why improv gets recommended for workgroup development every second Sunday.
    - xenonite 6y ago
      No, I assume an actor or actress despises being secretly watched, too.
      - skohan 6y ago
        I think the point is, if your version of "work" is focusing on the metrics, and climbing your way to the top rather than real work output, you would be happy to have more metrics which are orthogonal to real work
- CraigJPerry 6y ago
  That's not what this feature is. It's a thinly veiled product to sell more Microsoft products. It's "insights" include utter garbage like "workers who share files on onedrive cause time savings vs. those who share files via email" https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/admin/productivity/content-collaboration?view=o365-worldwide https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/admin/product...
chrisseaton 6y ago
It's a news article. They're reporting what happened. What happened was people criticised the feature as workplace surveillance. That's an objective fact. Whether or not it is workplace surveillance is an opinion, not an objective fact. So they report the fact that someone had that opinion, not that it is fact. It's a good thing - it's good journalism to do this.
- mejutoco 6y ago
  I am conflicted about this one. It is possible to think of situations where reporting two opposing opinions as equally valid is not neutral but instead legitimizes an extremist opinion. Overall it is easier for the journalism medium, since it does not annoy any advertisers; and it has this objective air. I am not sure if there is a better solution.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I think it might be done to more of an extreme in the UK than people are used to elsewhere. For example the BBC will report a headline like <Man "walks on moon">, and some people react to that like 'why is it in quotes are they saying they don't believe it?' What they're doing is reporting that they have been told by a source that a man walked on the moon. The source may be the President of the United States, but they're still reporting what the source told them, because they weren't there they don't know they didn't see it with their own eyes. They just know what they were told and so they quote that. It's a principle, and sometimes principles look funny but the point is you always do it... on principle.
    - mejutoco 6y ago
      Totally agree with the example you give, with quotes. My comment was directed more towards news where they would report, following your example, <Group a says "man walked on the moon", group b says "nobody was ever in the moon">. When it is reported in this way it feels a bit lazy, under the pretense of reporting on the "facts" ("Somebody said something" is a fact too, but were we on the moon or not?) I guess all I am saying is sometimes reporting from the perspective of "there are two sides" (for every issue) is not neutral. It is an instance of False dichotomy, and removes all nuance on the debate (only options pro or against)

just-juan-post 6y ago

Yep, that and the mention of an apology in the headline when there is none in the body is enough for me to flag this piece of corporate propaganda.

kace91 6y ago
The article is misleading, but the news that the feature has been rolled back is still worth sharing I think. I wouldn't have known otherwise.
herodoturtle 6y ago
Are you implying that Microsoft bribed The Guardian? Or are you perhaps saying that the The Guardian have some kind of indirect interest in massaging Microsoft's rollback into an admission of guilt? I'm curious why you suggest it might be corporate propaganda.

YetAnotherNick 6y ago

Is the surveillance part the problem or the scoring of productivity? I am pretty sure most employers have the ability to log information like what was mentioned here. It's just that they don't use it for measuring productivity due to the obvious flaw that it can be hacked if employees know about it. Most companies use this type of information only when the employee is suspect of leaks or misconduct eg Google has used logged data as evidence against Anthony Levandowski of the data he transferred. Slack gives administrators most of the data for the type it was mentioned in the article. Are you sure that your employer hasn't installed any custom software/antivirus in your work device? Likely they have.

asveikau 6y ago
> It's just that they don't use it for measuring productivity due to the obvious flaw that it can be hacked if employees know about it. I would think the bigger issue is that there isn't any basis to say that the metrics collected are a realistic capture of productivity. Measuring stuff and understanding measurements is hard, and you don't want to make big and consequential decisions on a bullshit number.
isodev 6y ago
I’m absolutely sure. This practice is illegal in the EU. You can’t log stuff unless you get explicit permission from the employee, listing the exact metrics and purposes of the data logged (also things like where and how long it will be stored). It’s baffling that Microsoft thought this was a good idea in the first place.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago
  Yes with all the attention being paid to big tech - this is just asking to be thrown under the bus by Amazon and Google, face book etc "we are just honest business man - just look at the extremely creepy shit Microsoft get up to"
- LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
  If they put it into contract, would it be legal? (I'm not in EU.)
crpatino 6y ago
> Most companies use this type of information only when the employee is suspect of leaks or misconduct This opinion based on what? You may not be aware of this management theory called Taylorism, taught around the world in every MBA and undergraduate business program, which spouses tight measurement of worker productivity as a way to achieve "efficiency" (not the naive engineering definition of efficiency you are thinking about, but the maximization of profits/revenue per monetary unit spent on payroll). While it is not the only, or even the most popular, management doctrine around, it is far from uncommon. The shortest stint on my career was at a certain Fortune 500 company. There I was expected to chronometer my coffee and bathroom breaks, as well as all other activities I undertook while on company premises. This as an IT worker (tech support, required programming but no full software development), which is a sort of protected species in terms of the workforce. Since this was self reporting, there was a lot of wiggle room; and I'd even say most of it was not due to employee dishonesty but just fatigue. It is hard to remember to keep score of the exact times when you start any given task when you have urgent and actually productive duties to fulfill, so sometimes you had to give an estimation. But I am sure that company would jump right at the chance to use Office 365's surveillance tools to refine their record keeping, and maybe root out some lying slackers as the icing of the cake.

slg 6y ago

>workplace surveillance How do you define that? I ask because I am guessing people who are angered by this have no idea what data employers can already access. Have you seen the data that most MDM or network monitoring software can provide about employees? That is much more sensitive data than what Microsoft is reporting and I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. The Microsoft stuff seemed intrusive and wrong headed, but odds are if your employer wanted to use that they are also using some much worse stuff too. I might even consider the Microsoft tools helpful as a canary in a coalmine for other bad practices that are much harder to see.

lukevp 6y ago
I think the idea with the MS tool is that a nontechnical manager can see these scores and potentially have bias or take action based on how “productive” people are when these metrics are really meaningless for most (except maybe customer service people, but they will already be measured with different tools.) the network and mdm teams’ surveillance is more deep and sensitive, but it’s not likely to be accessible directly to your supervisors.
- chadlavi 6y ago
  Entirely this.
syshum 6y ago
That is classic whataboutism, just like Pointing out the China or North Korea have worse human rights abuse in no way justifies some other nation for abusing peoples rights Simply because companies have other tools for which to spy on their employees does not justify Microsoft adding one more
- slg 6y ago
  This is not whataboutism because the guilty parties are the same. I'm not saying don't worry about draconian drug laws in the US because China and North Korea are running concentration camps. I am asking why should we focus on Chinese and North Korean drug laws when they are already running concentration camps. The most severe problems deserve the most attention.

iso1631 6y ago

> Microsoft apologizes for workplace surveillance feature How about "Microsoft regrets the bad PR raised by workplace surveillance feature" Or even "Microsoft delighted at PR raised by workplace surveillance feature and wants to continue the publicity"

mortenjorck 6y ago

Additionally frustrating is that the article takes unquestioningly Microsoft's premise that these metrics have value: > But that information could also be seen on a user-by-user basis, potentially allowing managers to identify individual employees who weren’t contributing enough A good manager should identify employees who aren't contributing enough and work with them to understand how to empower them to contribute more. But the way to gauge this is by actually looking at the work they produce; snooping on their computer usage is a poor substitute used by poor managers.

wsinks 6y ago
I really like how Slack states all this in their analytics. They give you just enough data to satisfy your craving for making sure people are using the app, and then they mention "message count has no relevance to actual productivity". They definitely stay hard in the platform category.
- skohan 6y ago
  Depending on the team culture, slack usage might be a counter-indicator for productivity
  - Frost1x 6y ago
    Slack is the most unproductive application I think I've used.
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      I had a job once where the person tasked with training me would only do so over Slack, even though they sat 3 feet in front of me. If I spoke up to ask a question, they would angrily turn around and tell me to message them instead. Needless to say, I quit after 2 weeks.
    - swsieber 6y ago
      What about Jira? Ha ha seriously though, I was on a video call and people heard my laptop fans kick on and thought I was compiling. In reality, I opened Jira.

haberman 6y ago

What is the objective bright line between reasonable observation of an employee and "workplace surveillance"? Is it "workplace surveillance" when you can view the calendar appointments of your coworkers? Or see stats about the changelists submitted, bugs resolved, etc. of each person? Or see their dot when they are viewing a document? Maybe these Microsoft features crossed a threshold of creepiness past which the world should not go. But to act like it's a settled conversation, where right and wrong are so obvious that the issue was agreed upon long ago, does not match with reality in my opinion.

tj-teej 6y ago
There's a clear objective difference between judging output vs secretly watching an employee
- musingsole 6y ago
  Pedantic: Not if your job is acting. But I think that pedantic point hints at something that creates this problem: most jobs have a degree of performance to them (i.e. act out the part). Which is perhaps why improv gets recommended for workgroup development every second Sunday.
  - xenonite 6y ago
    No, I assume an actor or actress despises being secretly watched, too.
    - skohan 6y ago
      I think the point is, if your version of "work" is focusing on the metrics, and climbing your way to the top rather than real work output, you would be happy to have more metrics which are orthogonal to real work
CraigJPerry 6y ago
That's not what this feature is. It's a thinly veiled product to sell more Microsoft products. It's "insights" include utter garbage like "workers who share files on onedrive cause time savings vs. those who share files via email" https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/admin/productivity/content-collaboration?view=o365-worldwide https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/admin/product...

chrisseaton 6y ago

It's a news article. They're reporting what happened. What happened was people criticised the feature as workplace surveillance. That's an objective fact. Whether or not it is workplace surveillance is an opinion, not an objective fact. So they report the fact that someone had that opinion, not that it is fact. It's a good thing - it's good journalism to do this.

mejutoco 6y ago
I am conflicted about this one. It is possible to think of situations where reporting two opposing opinions as equally valid is not neutral but instead legitimizes an extremist opinion. Overall it is easier for the journalism medium, since it does not annoy any advertisers; and it has this objective air. I am not sure if there is a better solution.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I think it might be done to more of an extreme in the UK than people are used to elsewhere. For example the BBC will report a headline like <Man "walks on moon">, and some people react to that like 'why is it in quotes are they saying they don't believe it?' What they're doing is reporting that they have been told by a source that a man walked on the moon. The source may be the President of the United States, but they're still reporting what the source told them, because they weren't there they don't know they didn't see it with their own eyes. They just know what they were told and so they quote that. It's a principle, and sometimes principles look funny but the point is you always do it... on principle.
  - mejutoco 6y ago
    Totally agree with the example you give, with quotes. My comment was directed more towards news where they would report, following your example, <Group a says "man walked on the moon", group b says "nobody was ever in the moon">. When it is reported in this way it feels a bit lazy, under the pretense of reporting on the "facts" ("Somebody said something" is a fact too, but were we on the moon or not?) I guess all I am saying is sometimes reporting from the perspective of "there are two sides" (for every issue) is not neutral. It is an instance of False dichotomy, and removes all nuance on the debate (only options pro or against)