6 ms·
"In another Orwellian measure, Pyongyang phones' government-created operating system takes screenshots of the device at random intervals, the two defectors say-
by scaramanga 4y ago
"In another Orwellian measure, Pyongyang phones' government-created operating system takes screenshots of the device at random intervals, the two defectors say-a surveillance feature designed to instill a sense that the user is always being monitored. The images from those screenshots are then kept in an inaccessible portion of the phone's storage, where they can't be viewed or deleted."
Oh, hah, a friend of mine worked at a company that developed employee monitoring software that did exactly that, it also took pics of you using the webcam. They used it for their own employees, too.
- donthellbanme 4y agoCould you name the company? We need strong anti-monitoring laws. The only profession I think needs constant monotoring is the average cop, and not so average cop, like the FBI. It's ironic many cops are required to wear cams now, but they can still cover that lens.
- golergka 4y agoYou already have them: freedom not to sign a contract with such an employer. Something that you don't have in a communist country.
- mschuster91 4y ago> You already have them: freedom not to sign a contract with such an employer. When that employer is the only major one around, there is no such thing as a truly free choice. There's a reason why meatpackers, Amazon or Walmart like to set up shop preferably in areas with high unemployment and why unionization attempts have been so fraught with failures - these companies exploit that the US social safety net is pretty much broken, and when your survival depends on that crap job you're not gonna complain too much. A truly free labor market is one where everyone can choose to not work without losing their home as a result... only then, employers are forced to provide actually competitive working conditions (wages, workplace safety, equipment, break times).
- golergka 4y agoYou always have a choice to not engage in any commercial activity with other people and rely on your own devices.
- mschuster91 4y agoYou reasonably can't. Most people don't live in rural areas with enough farm land, and even if you have farm land that can grow enough (both in quantity and variety) crops to feed your family, which is a rarity in itself, you still need to deal with property taxes, expenses for maintaining your farm house and equipment, school expenses... Face it, there is no way of living "off the grid" to a reasonable degree.
- npteljes 4y agoFreedom must be protected by good legislation, otherwise you end up with situations like wage slavery[0] or a food desert[1]. More freedom for companies could easily mean less freedom for the people. Although I concede the point that basically any country is in a better shape than NK in this regard. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert
- golergka 4y agoThat's the opposite of protecting the freedom, as with such legislation you're limiting people's freedom to enter contracts of their own choosing.
- npteljes 4y agoYeah that's true. Ideally I'd limit them to the least exploitative contracts possible. My thinking here is inspired by the free software movement, where the basic idea is that by having a specifically limiting license, they enable the greatest freedom for users. With the implied idea being that by having fewer restrictions, the system ends up being more restrictive, instead of less restrictive.
- gambiting 4y agoThat's like saying we don't need laws against physical punishment at workplace, after all, you simply have the freedom to not sign a contract with an employer who beats their workers with a stick, right? In fact why have any regulation around employment, you are free to pick where you work, do you not?
- golergka 4y agoWhy would you need laws against physical punishment at a workplace if you already have general-purpose laws against assault?
- scaramanga 4y agoSadly, I can't remember, but it probably wouldn't be too hard to google them up. They had a hilarious part of the employment process which was figuring out if the new hire was in the EU or not, because if so, then legally the software could not be operated without consent. But that obviously lead to awkward conversations where consent given in that situation would be pretty questionable...
- Jon_Lowtek 4y agoThat means they believe the surveillance is not necessary for the position they hire, otherwise it would not be awkward.
- kefir 4y agohttps://www.crossover.com/ https://www.crossover.com/ Pays $100K for senior developer role which is big money in many parts of the world (India, Eastern Europe, Africa, etc), so people put up with spyware.
- raxxorraxor 4y agoAnd why is he still your friend? Seriously, I have little respect for developers in such ventures and employers leveraging this kind of "bossware". It is the minimum requirement of management to set goals that workers need to achieve. Either these goals are met or they are not.
- chii 4y ago> And why is he still your friend? Seriously, I have little respect for developers in such ventures because what people do in their jobs have little to do with their values. It's an economic and financial transaction first, and rarely an ethical transaction. I'm glad that people who worked on these sorts of software still have friends who dont think like you do. Using social ostracization to implement public policy is a terrible idea. Rather you ought to be doing activism and promote privacy and outlaw bossware.
- madeofpalk 4y agoWhat is "activism" other than various implementations of social ostracization?
- Jon_Lowtek 4y agoAdvocacy
- chii 4y agojoining or starting a lobby group to influence law makers to change the law to prevent the unethical scenarios outlined in the parent comment.
- nchi3 4y agoIf the alternative meant starving, I'd agree. That's rarely the case for software developers though, so I think it definitely shows of their values. Doing it "for the money" is not a free card to do anything unethical when it's easy to say no and get another job. An extreme example: Was voluntarily being a guard in Auschwitz fine because it was legal? Should you be able to get away with saying "I only did it for this money"?
- chii 4y ago> They used it for their own employees, too. that's some dogfooding there!
- spydum 4y agoI think people forget a lot of secured offices handling sensitive info have CCTV cameras all around and very restrictive desk and device policies. Some got the idea during pandemic measures to allow work from home on these sensitive jobs, as long as they could observe the employees using this kind of software. It's considered a compensating control. Somehow people are weirded out by webcams and screen grabs but not CCTV? * This was mostly aimed at the critics of the friend - not the NK goons!
- colanderman 4y agoCCTV is installed in places where you are visible to your co-workers anyway. You laptop webcam follows you everywhere. It's an invasion of privacy.