3 ms·

If someone works from home (in some capacity) and has an internet-connected security camera in their home, and they subscribe to a service who monitors those ca

by teddyh 4y ago

If someone works from home (in some capacity) and has an internet-connected security camera in their home, and they subscribe to a service who monitors those cameras, would that service also be subject to approval from their employer? How about the firmware in their webcam and microphone? Their phone? Their hearing aid? Let’s face it, there is now entirely too much technology which is able to compromise a person’s security that employers can’t realistically declare all of it to be off-limits for employees.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
I have a client that wants me to work only on their official locked down laptop, which I do. But it has a terrible camera and microphone, so I use my own better gear. It made a huge difference in the quality of life of all my coworkers with which I spend hours peer coding or in conf calls. It's also better for myself, as my client takes me more seriously because in a meeting, as I'm the only one with good sound and image. Were I to use only approved hardware, I would not be able to make our work life better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > But it has a terrible camera and microphone Mine has no camera or microphone at all -- which I greatly appreciate!
kixxauth 4y ago
Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the vast majority of hacks are along the social hacking vector. If we believe this is generally true, then the best ROI of our security resources is in training personnel to withstand the attacks. There are some challenges to overcome. First, success will require that leadership within an organization understands that we cannot simply throw more technology at the problem. We need good security professionals who know how to educate the general public. Organizations need to find creative ways to make it part of their cultural DNA to learn the skills required for breach avoidance. Second, as any medium advances it takes time for people to catch up and approach it in a way that is not so naive. If we are honest with ourselves, technology is as much a medium as it is a tool. For example: When a film of an oncoming train was shown to early audiences who had never seen motion picture before it made them instinctively duck as the train approached them. It was like a thrill ride today. It takes time for social groups to desensitize from a new medium. We took the naive approach with social networks, and now we are learning the consequences. The problem is that technology is introducing new mediums at such a rapid pace that many people don't have enough time to become more sophisticated in its use.
izacus 4y ago
> Let’s face it, there is now entirely too much technology which is able to compromise a person’s security that employers can’t realistically declare all of it to be off-limits for employees. Oh but they'll surely try. You can't say that small things like "reality" ever really touch corporate IT and box ticking auditors.

by teddyh 4y ago

BiteCode_dev 4y ago

I have a client that wants me to work only on their official locked down laptop, which I do. But it has a terrible camera and microphone, so I use my own better gear. It made a huge difference in the quality of life of all my coworkers with which I spend hours peer coding or in conf calls. It's also better for myself, as my client takes me more seriously because in a meeting, as I'm the only one with good sound and image. Were I to use only approved hardware, I would not be able to make our work life better.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
JohnFen 4y ago
> But it has a terrible camera and microphone Mine has no camera or microphone at all -- which I greatly appreciate!

kixxauth 4y ago

Yeah, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the vast majority of hacks are along the social hacking vector. If we believe this is generally true, then the best ROI of our security resources is in training personnel to withstand the attacks. There are some challenges to overcome. First, success will require that leadership within an organization understands that we cannot simply throw more technology at the problem. We need good security professionals who know how to educate the general public. Organizations need to find creative ways to make it part of their cultural DNA to learn the skills required for breach avoidance. Second, as any medium advances it takes time for people to catch up and approach it in a way that is not so naive. If we are honest with ourselves, technology is as much a medium as it is a tool. For example: When a film of an oncoming train was shown to early audiences who had never seen motion picture before it made them instinctively duck as the train approached them. It was like a thrill ride today. It takes time for social groups to desensitize from a new medium. We took the naive approach with social networks, and now we are learning the consequences. The problem is that technology is introducing new mediums at such a rapid pace that many people don't have enough time to become more sophisticated in its use.

izacus 4y ago

> Let’s face it, there is now entirely too much technology which is able to compromise a person’s security that employers can’t realistically declare all of it to be off-limits for employees. Oh but they'll surely try. You can't say that small things like "reality" ever really touch corporate IT and box ticking auditors.