> Internal company communcation channels are open to inspection by the company. That is the current rule (at least in some places), but we're conflating the is

> Internal company communcation channels are open to inspection by the company. That is the current rule (at least in some places), but we're conflating the issue of 'is it legal?' with 'is it right?'. > Whether that company wants to use AI or pay for agents to read ever internal email is up to them. IMHO this argument needs to be buried once and for all, especially on HN. Automation by computer transforms the power of otherwise manual functions. For example, government could always surveil people on the street, but they had to do it manually. With computers, using cameras and facial recognition, they can automatically track the entire population (theoretically, and later if not now). It's not the same thing as manual surveillance of a suspect. > Want your bosses not to hear you rant about a new corporate policy? Don't sent such comments via company email. All that said, I think there are legitimate questions. The mass surveillance enables management to stay ahead of any employee organizing or other political (as in office politics) moves - management knows before the employees themselves realize that lots of people agree with each other. That includes unionization, for example. Yes, if the company allows it then you can communicate through outside channels, but can you reach the whole company there? That is certainly a hinderance to any mass activity.