30 ms·
I think we’re saying the same thing - companies are concerned about the data and security risk. I still don’t think they’re going to be able to universally ban
by cddotdotslash 3y ago
I think we’re saying the same thing - companies are concerned about the data and security risk. I still don’t think they’re going to be able to universally ban it, and I think doing so without an alternative in place will drive them to even less secure third party chat apps that still probably use the same API behind the scenes.
And I removed the last sentence from my comment, which didn’t mention a service, only that I was interested in chatting with folks in similar positions, precisely because this is a new space and many companies are scrambling to address it.
- willnonya 3y agoI thinknyoure missing the way this type of ban works. When you tell the emomplyees not to use a banned service it becomes an employee discipline issue. If they violate it its likely a problem for the company but it becomes a serious problem for that employee.
- threeseed 3y agoIf you're going through the Apple network or using corporate equipment then of course they can universally ban it. They monitor all outbound traffic and audit what you're doing on your computer. Do you actually think companies just give you root access and unrestricted internet and operate on a "we trust you" model ?
- cddotdotslash 3y agoOf course not. My point is not about _how_ companies ban it, or how their IT security policies work, but rather that I think they need to offer an approved, internal alternative. Employees are clearly clamoring to use this type of technology and increasingly see it as necessary for their work. Trying to ban something without an alternative in place (or with draconian "we'll fire you if you try to use it" policies) is where you start to run into trouble.