4 ms·

>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

by 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.
  - Aeolun 6y ago
    I think that’s still whataboutism? The same logic applies in the US for differrent topics, so it should follow it applies within one company on different topics. It’s just a case of ‘please ignore this problem because there is a bigger problem’
    - slg 6y ago
      From Wikipedia[1]: >Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I am not trying to counter an argument by pointing out hypocrisy. I am simply stating there are bigger fish to fry. Maybe you object to that argument, but it wasn't whataboutism.
      - hyperdimension 6y ago
        There should be a new Law as a sibling to Godwin's Law: any time someone starts throwing out quotes from Wikipedia or, worse, comments that consist solely of a link to a Wikipedia page, constructive discussion is over. Nothing against the parent post; I see it all the time. You just were an handy target. :)
        slg 6y ago
        I don't know how my comment killed a constructive debate rather than the comment that labeled my initial post "whataboutism" when it is something that objectively does not meet the traditional definition. I really don't know how I am supposed to constructively dispute that without pulling in the actual definition from somewhere like Wikipedia.
    - Shared404 6y ago
      Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2368/ https://xkcd.com/2368/
wsinks 6y ago
I'm with you on network monitoring, but what MDM gives more info than basic device information? I'm unfortunately ignorant.
- schoolornot 6y ago
  macOS MDM on it's own is fairly okay. There is an AccessRights bit that can be loaded with the enrollment profile to allow or disallow certain actions. Certainly the protocol can be ab/used to silently install other software: endpoint detection tooling, scripts, etc. and to suppress protections normally built-in to the OS that would normally gate background usage of apps that crawl certain file paths, etc. So on it's own, no issues. Combined with 3rd party tooling, poorly written scripts, etc. dangerous.
crispyambulance 6y ago
> Have you seen the data that most MDM or network monitoring software can provide about employees? No. I have not, not really. I would like to understand more about this, however. I've asked about this but the "stock answer" is always along the lines of "The company owns the equipment, therefore they can do anything they want." That stock answer leaves out a WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL about exactly what info is collected, how it's processed and some guidance about what's "normal" vs "extraordinary". Presumably it's possible for them to do "a lot", but no one who really knows is willing to explain this in a way that's useful. This would make a very interesting essay or in-depth investigative journalism article, I just don't understand why no one has done that, all writing about this just seems to boil down to the very boring "the computer equipment belongs to your employer" analysis. I suspect that the vast majority of organizations do very little with this kind of surveillance power, but then, there's no way I can really know because either people stay silent about it or they have no idea.
- slg 6y ago
  I have not used any MDM software in years, but I have used ones that can see your location, apps installed, and other basic information like that. They also generally have ways to control your phone such as the ability to lock down or completely wipe your phone. I have heard there are more advanced MDMs that can get more detailed information such as contacts and usage information about messages, but I think it is still impossible to get the messages themselves. I have also had to install MDM software in the past at companies with BYOD policies in order to get access to company email or corporate networks so the "they own the device" answer isn't always valid.
  - posguy 6y ago
    Good for Business, Mobile Iron, etc are commonly deployed on personal cellphones with little regard for the fact that these devices and the associated cell service is not paid for by the employer in any way. Pretty crummy for employees who can have their data wiped at any time by a petty employer.
  - LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago
StanislavPetrov 6y ago
Whether or not employers already have other workplace surveillance tools has absolutely no bearing on the fact this Microsoft "feature" is, in fact, a workplace surveillance tool >I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. Again, whether or not people have complained about the other, existing workplace surveillance tools has absolutely no bearing the accurate description of Microsoft's new "feature" as a workplace surveillance tool. >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. Your employer's access to other, potentially more intrusive, surveillance tools also has no bearing on Microsoft's indisputable status as a surveillance tool. >I might even consider the Microsoft tools helpful as a canary in a coalmine for other bad practices that are much harder to see. This canary would already be dead if your previous statement about your employer's propensity to use other, more intrusive, surveillance tools is accurate. But in any event, even if Microsoft's new surveillance tool somehow benefited you by better informing you of your employer's devious intent, it still remains a surveillance tool, and should be accurately described as such.
Aeolun 6y ago
> That is much more sensitive data than what Microsoft is reporting and I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. I think it’s more that that battle is already lost, so it seems a bit silly to go on fighting it. The fact that there is already something worse is a very poor reason for adding more.

by slg 6y ago

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.
- Aeolun 6y ago
  I think that’s still whataboutism? The same logic applies in the US for differrent topics, so it should follow it applies within one company on different topics. It’s just a case of ‘please ignore this problem because there is a bigger problem’
  - slg 6y ago
    From Wikipedia[1]: >Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism I am not trying to counter an argument by pointing out hypocrisy. I am simply stating there are bigger fish to fry. Maybe you object to that argument, but it wasn't whataboutism.
    - hyperdimension 6y ago
      There should be a new Law as a sibling to Godwin's Law: any time someone starts throwing out quotes from Wikipedia or, worse, comments that consist solely of a link to a Wikipedia page, constructive discussion is over. Nothing against the parent post; I see it all the time. You just were an handy target. :)
      - slg 6y ago
        I don't know how my comment killed a constructive debate rather than the comment that labeled my initial post "whataboutism" when it is something that objectively does not meet the traditional definition. I really don't know how I am supposed to constructively dispute that without pulling in the actual definition from somewhere like Wikipedia.
  - Shared404 6y ago
    Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/2368/ https://xkcd.com/2368/

wsinks 6y ago

I'm with you on network monitoring, but what MDM gives more info than basic device information? I'm unfortunately ignorant.

schoolornot 6y ago
macOS MDM on it's own is fairly okay. There is an AccessRights bit that can be loaded with the enrollment profile to allow or disallow certain actions. Certainly the protocol can be ab/used to silently install other software: endpoint detection tooling, scripts, etc. and to suppress protections normally built-in to the OS that would normally gate background usage of apps that crawl certain file paths, etc. So on it's own, no issues. Combined with 3rd party tooling, poorly written scripts, etc. dangerous.

crispyambulance 6y ago

> Have you seen the data that most MDM or network monitoring software can provide about employees? No. I have not, not really. I would like to understand more about this, however. I've asked about this but the "stock answer" is always along the lines of "The company owns the equipment, therefore they can do anything they want." That stock answer leaves out a WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL about exactly what info is collected, how it's processed and some guidance about what's "normal" vs "extraordinary". Presumably it's possible for them to do "a lot", but no one who really knows is willing to explain this in a way that's useful. This would make a very interesting essay or in-depth investigative journalism article, I just don't understand why no one has done that, all writing about this just seems to boil down to the very boring "the computer equipment belongs to your employer" analysis. I suspect that the vast majority of organizations do very little with this kind of surveillance power, but then, there's no way I can really know because either people stay silent about it or they have no idea.

slg 6y ago
I have not used any MDM software in years, but I have used ones that can see your location, apps installed, and other basic information like that. They also generally have ways to control your phone such as the ability to lock down or completely wipe your phone. I have heard there are more advanced MDMs that can get more detailed information such as contacts and usage information about messages, but I think it is still impossible to get the messages themselves. I have also had to install MDM software in the past at companies with BYOD policies in order to get access to company email or corporate networks so the "they own the device" answer isn't always valid.
- posguy 6y ago
  Good for Business, Mobile Iron, etc are commonly deployed on personal cellphones with little regard for the fact that these devices and the associated cell service is not paid for by the employer in any way. Pretty crummy for employees who can have their data wiped at any time by a petty employer.
- LdSGSgvupDV 6y ago

StanislavPetrov 6y ago

Whether or not employers already have other workplace surveillance tools has absolutely no bearing on the fact this Microsoft "feature" is, in fact, a workplace surveillance tool >I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. Again, whether or not people have complained about the other, existing workplace surveillance tools has absolutely no bearing the accurate description of Microsoft's new "feature" as a workplace surveillance tool. >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. Your employer's access to other, potentially more intrusive, surveillance tools also has no bearing on Microsoft's indisputable status as a surveillance tool. >I might even consider the Microsoft tools helpful as a canary in a coalmine for other bad practices that are much harder to see. This canary would already be dead if your previous statement about your employer's propensity to use other, more intrusive, surveillance tools is accurate. But in any event, even if Microsoft's new surveillance tool somehow benefited you by better informing you of your employer's devious intent, it still remains a surveillance tool, and should be accurately described as such.

Aeolun 6y ago

> That is much more sensitive data than what Microsoft is reporting and I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. I think it’s more that that battle is already lost, so it seems a bit silly to go on fighting it. The fact that there is already something worse is a very poor reason for adding more.