3 ms·

Would it have been better if they had these conversations in person and never left a breadcrumb trail? Not saying what they did is ethical but why would anyone

Would it have been better if they had these conversations in person and never left a breadcrumb trail? Not saying what they did is ethical but why would anyone have an expectation of forthrightness here?

Mistletoe 3y ago
When I read things like this I see why Mark Cuban tried to make his CyberDust thing for execs happen.
gwbas1c 3y ago
> Would it have been better if they had these conversations in person Probably because they weren't in the same room? Same building? Same state? Same country? The value of chat is that it's a very lightweight conversation; especially in a distributed team. It's also a good way to start a conversation with someone if they might be concentrating and need a few minutes to put down what they're doing. Either way, I would assume that in-person communication was impractical. (Granted, I can see the need for "history off." Perhaps you need to discuss a personal matter, like an inappropriate advance of another co worker.) > Not saying what they did is ethical but why would anyone have an expectation of forthrightness here? Many people have different values than me. Personally, whenever I communicate through any electronic means I assume that whatever I say might be recorded and used against me. It basically makes it hard to do crime; and I really don't want my employer to do crime; and I am not a criminal or politically persecuted. I think the fact that much of our workplace day-to-day communication is recorded may expose that some people treat these matters different than you and I.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  So who wins exactly if this precedent is set and companies all move back to less efficient but "safer" channels of communication? That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society. Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Or is the government going to enforce mandatory private monitoring?
  - gwbas1c 3y ago
    > So who wins Someone in this thread mentioned that the financial sector records all history for anything work related. What's wrong with that? > That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society. Are you arguing that corporations need to violate laws in order to be productive and efficient? > Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Yes. But look at how much leaked out in Google's case. What do you think would happen if Google's policy was to only use personal means of communication? (IE, personal cell #, personal email, text messages instead of chat...) What do you think would be happening now?
    - jimsimmons 3y ago
      If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen.
      - gwbas1c 3y ago
        I think you're confusing personal liberties and the right to privacy with the delicate balance of corporate regulation. > If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen. There's a very clear difference between our right to privacy as individuals, and how we communicate in our jobs as employees or contractors of a corporation. The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" statement is a fallacy when it comes to an individuals right to privacy. In contract, because corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as people, thus "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies to corporate email, chat, ect.

Mistletoe 3y ago

When I read things like this I see why Mark Cuban tried to make his CyberDust thing for execs happen.

gwbas1c 3y ago

> Would it have been better if they had these conversations in person Probably because they weren't in the same room? Same building? Same state? Same country? The value of chat is that it's a very lightweight conversation; especially in a distributed team. It's also a good way to start a conversation with someone if they might be concentrating and need a few minutes to put down what they're doing. Either way, I would assume that in-person communication was impractical. (Granted, I can see the need for "history off." Perhaps you need to discuss a personal matter, like an inappropriate advance of another co worker.) > Not saying what they did is ethical but why would anyone have an expectation of forthrightness here? Many people have different values than me. Personally, whenever I communicate through any electronic means I assume that whatever I say might be recorded and used against me. It basically makes it hard to do crime; and I really don't want my employer to do crime; and I am not a criminal or politically persecuted. I think the fact that much of our workplace day-to-day communication is recorded may expose that some people treat these matters different than you and I.

Ferret7446 3y ago
So who wins exactly if this precedent is set and companies all move back to less efficient but "safer" channels of communication? That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society. Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Or is the government going to enforce mandatory private monitoring?
- gwbas1c 3y ago
  > So who wins Someone in this thread mentioned that the financial sector records all history for anything work related. What's wrong with that? > That would represent a huge loss of productivity and efficiency for society. Are you arguing that corporations need to violate laws in order to be productive and efficient? > Because there will always be such channels used in private business. Yes. But look at how much leaked out in Google's case. What do you think would happen if Google's policy was to only use personal means of communication? (IE, personal cell #, personal email, text messages instead of chat...) What do you think would be happening now?
  - jimsimmons 3y ago
    If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen.
    - gwbas1c 3y ago
      I think you're confusing personal liberties and the right to privacy with the delicate balance of corporate regulation. > If everyone’s forced to speak under the fear that anything they say can and will be used against them, a lot of communication won’t happen. There's a very clear difference between our right to privacy as individuals, and how we communicate in our jobs as employees or contractors of a corporation. The "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" statement is a fallacy when it comes to an individuals right to privacy. In contract, because corporations are not people and do not have the same rights as people, thus "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear" applies to corporate email, chat, ect.