4 ms·

U.S. Consumer Watchdog Cautions Businesses on Surveillance of Workers

120 points by sandwichsphinx 2y ago

1-6 2y ago
When the company you work offers you a company phone they built, don’t.
- jamesmotherway 2y ago
  The alternative in many cases would be to install MDM software on one's personal device, which seems like the worse option to me.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hoppyhoppy2 2y ago
A non-paywalled source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-watchdog-cautions-companies-against-snooping-on-workers/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-watchdog-cautions-comp...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lesuorac 2y ago
I do find it interesting how there seems to be more protections around phone calls than anything else. As-in your employer can not just randomly listen to all your phone calls but can just record your screen all day? https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/can-an-employer-monitor-the-telephone-calls-of-an-employee-who.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/can-an-employer-mo... Unrelated, I really wish this quote "The Court relied principally on the fact that the employee was an at-will employee and the employer had no legal interest in his future employment plans. " made its way into more lawsuits.
- sidewndr46 2y ago
  If we go back through history phones were first popular amongst the rich, powerful, and well connected. And politicians. None of whom wanted to be recorded. Even my dad explained to me how they didn't have a home phone line growing up. So as a result, we see lots of legal protections around phone calls. The story of the computer, the internet, and by extension all work on the computer is the opposite. It's seen as an element of the common people or the nouveau rich. The people least likely to be using a computer are the rich, powerful and well connected. Thus, no legal protections exist.
  - userbinator 2y ago
    Before phones, there was mail. Laws around the handling of mail are also extremely strict.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Right, I think it's just a case of following the technologies throughout the ages in alignment with the political/cultural climate. Computers are "newcomers", and by that point there was big political push for mass surveillance and anti-privacy propaganda was picking up. People have gotten less privacy conscious as time goes on so our laws regarding technology reflect that. Also the nature of the tech matters, I think. Post is fairly simple to ensure privacy with, same with phone. You have to go out of your way to open things up or record them. Phones calls, by their nature, exist on the wire while they're happening. But computers store things and that's a huge part of their usefulness. If you're already saving stuff to disk, which you probably are, there's no friction really with using that for nefarious uses. For example, request logging in a corporate environment. Although this doesn't explain things like recording screens.
      - sidewndr46 2y ago
        You can basically extend your argument and replace computers with social media. It turns out all modern social media is done on a computer today, but even if it wasn't your argument still holds.
aspenmayer 2y ago
https://archive.is/q6EK0 https://archive.is/q6EK0
Animats 2y ago
Don't worry. Once the True Leader is back in power, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be powerless again.
- Terr_ 2y ago
  No longer will our poor politicians have to live in fear of their personally branded "Universities" going bankrupt for cheating student-consumers.
- randmeerkat 2y ago
  > Don't worry. Once the True Leader is back in power, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be powerless again. That’s the problem with Congress abdicating its duties and assigning rule making to administrative bodies and their respective courts instead of passing actual laws. Instead of being upset at whatever figurehead sits at the top you would do well to write your senators and representatives instead.
bonestamp2 2y ago
Some countries have laws that require companies to disclose what they monitor about their employees. That seems fair.
- genocidicbunny 2y ago
  That really needs to be combined with strong protections for the employees to be effective. If you can be fired at the drop of a hat for no reason, many other protections become very moot.
  - gruez 2y ago
    How would this work? If you're on company time it's very hard to argue you have an expectation of privacy, especially on company devices.
    - throwaway743 2y ago
      Germany does it pretty well.
    - consteval 2y ago
      Historically you have had at least some expectation of privacy. Because cameras didn't exist or weren't economical. You weren't being watched 24/7. So that type of thing can work and be effective for a business. The extreme granularity of visibility and control employers have is a very new phenomenon. No doubt they benefit from it, but whether it's mutually beneficial is up for debate.
  - AlchemistCamp 2y ago
    Not a good idea. Employees and employers should both be free to end the relationship at any time as long as it’s not for discrimination of a protected class. Otherwise you end up with a rigid system where there’s even more loss aversion involved in hiring than there already is.
lolokfine 2y ago
[dead]
dcow 2y ago
Often when discussing civil liberties, and protections thereof, the argument is "it's a choice you don't have to work for them and they're not the government they're a private entity so they can do whatever they want". It strikes me how absurd that argument is. It almost deliberately ignores that all citizens are private entities and would do whatever they want were it not for laws restricting the ability of one person to abridge the happiness of another. So how in the world have we become a society that's okay with TLS inspection "because security and compliance" but not okay with recorded phone calls? It's a crock of crap. Traditionally, the social value of whatever enterprise wants to engage in that type of spying would need to out-weight the fundamental right to privacy of all its employees. And you'd of course need to demonstrate that e.g. TLS inspection is actually required to sustain that immense value. Laws exist to make unethical creepy things also illegal things. You don't get a pass on being subject to limits on your ability delete the privacy of other citizens just because you're not the government. At least not in my book. And it's not really how things work. Your employer can't make hiring decisions based on protected classes or political alignment. So why should they be allowed to subject you to undue invasion of privacy? Is Civil Rights Act the only relevant legal framework these days?
- gruez 2y ago
  >So how in the world have we become a society that's okay with TLS inspection "because security and compliance" but not okay with recorded phone calls? What are you talking about? Call center workers are recorded all the time. People working in finance must conduct work conversations on a monitored medium, lest they get smacked by the SEC. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/50dc5bd3/unmonitored-business-communications-in-financial-services https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication... If you don't want the company to monitor your instagram browsing, do it from your phone, not your work machine.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Wiretapping is largely illegal except for some specific clauses for specific types of work. But generally, your employer is not allowed to arbitrarily record your phone calls.
impish9208 2y ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41936906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41936906
m463 2y ago
wsj just says "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker" So here's a direct link: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-to-curb-unchecked-worker-surveillance/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes...
throwaway743 2y ago
Never connect a personal device to an employer's network, whether it be wifi or VPN. Never log into personal accounts on an employer's devices (work phone, computer, etc) or networks. Avoid using a company vehicle for personal needs. Never say anything you wouldn't say in a higher up's or coworker's presence over slack, email, any communication platform used by coworkers and/or owned/authorized by an employer. This kind of monitoring happens, all your shit will be pryed on (personal accounts or otherwise), it's very common (in the US), it will be used against you, it is legal (in the US). This is a warning not just from personal experience, but it's also been the experience of many others. Germany is one of the only (maybe is the only?) countries that has made this kind of bullshit illegal.

1-6 2y ago

When the company you work offers you a company phone they built, don’t.

jamesmotherway 2y ago
The alternative in many cases would be to install MDM software on one's personal device, which seems like the worse option to me.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hoppyhoppy2 2y ago

A non-paywalled source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-watchdog-cautions-companies-against-snooping-on-workers/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/consumer-watchdog-cautions-comp...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

lesuorac 2y ago

I do find it interesting how there seems to be more protections around phone calls than anything else. As-in your employer can not just randomly listen to all your phone calls but can just record your screen all day? https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/can-an-employer-monitor-the-telephone-calls-of-an-employee-who.html https://corporate.findlaw.com/law-library/can-an-employer-mo... Unrelated, I really wish this quote "The Court relied principally on the fact that the employee was an at-will employee and the employer had no legal interest in his future employment plans. " made its way into more lawsuits.

sidewndr46 2y ago
If we go back through history phones were first popular amongst the rich, powerful, and well connected. And politicians. None of whom wanted to be recorded. Even my dad explained to me how they didn't have a home phone line growing up. So as a result, we see lots of legal protections around phone calls. The story of the computer, the internet, and by extension all work on the computer is the opposite. It's seen as an element of the common people or the nouveau rich. The people least likely to be using a computer are the rich, powerful and well connected. Thus, no legal protections exist.
- userbinator 2y ago
  Before phones, there was mail. Laws around the handling of mail are also extremely strict.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Right, I think it's just a case of following the technologies throughout the ages in alignment with the political/cultural climate. Computers are "newcomers", and by that point there was big political push for mass surveillance and anti-privacy propaganda was picking up. People have gotten less privacy conscious as time goes on so our laws regarding technology reflect that. Also the nature of the tech matters, I think. Post is fairly simple to ensure privacy with, same with phone. You have to go out of your way to open things up or record them. Phones calls, by their nature, exist on the wire while they're happening. But computers store things and that's a huge part of their usefulness. If you're already saving stuff to disk, which you probably are, there's no friction really with using that for nefarious uses. For example, request logging in a corporate environment. Although this doesn't explain things like recording screens.
    - sidewndr46 2y ago
      You can basically extend your argument and replace computers with social media. It turns out all modern social media is done on a computer today, but even if it wasn't your argument still holds.

aspenmayer 2y ago

https://archive.is/q6EK0 https://archive.is/q6EK0

Animats 2y ago

Don't worry. Once the True Leader is back in power, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be powerless again.

Terr_ 2y ago
No longer will our poor politicians have to live in fear of their personally branded "Universities" going bankrupt for cheating student-consumers.
randmeerkat 2y ago
> Don't worry. Once the True Leader is back in power, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau will be powerless again. That’s the problem with Congress abdicating its duties and assigning rule making to administrative bodies and their respective courts instead of passing actual laws. Instead of being upset at whatever figurehead sits at the top you would do well to write your senators and representatives instead.

bonestamp2 2y ago

Some countries have laws that require companies to disclose what they monitor about their employees. That seems fair.

genocidicbunny 2y ago
That really needs to be combined with strong protections for the employees to be effective. If you can be fired at the drop of a hat for no reason, many other protections become very moot.
- gruez 2y ago
  How would this work? If you're on company time it's very hard to argue you have an expectation of privacy, especially on company devices.
  - throwaway743 2y ago
    Germany does it pretty well.
  - consteval 2y ago
    Historically you have had at least some expectation of privacy. Because cameras didn't exist or weren't economical. You weren't being watched 24/7. So that type of thing can work and be effective for a business. The extreme granularity of visibility and control employers have is a very new phenomenon. No doubt they benefit from it, but whether it's mutually beneficial is up for debate.
- AlchemistCamp 2y ago
  Not a good idea. Employees and employers should both be free to end the relationship at any time as long as it’s not for discrimination of a protected class. Otherwise you end up with a rigid system where there’s even more loss aversion involved in hiring than there already is.

lolokfine 2y ago

[dead]

dcow 2y ago

Often when discussing civil liberties, and protections thereof, the argument is "it's a choice you don't have to work for them and they're not the government they're a private entity so they can do whatever they want". It strikes me how absurd that argument is. It almost deliberately ignores that all citizens are private entities and would do whatever they want were it not for laws restricting the ability of one person to abridge the happiness of another. So how in the world have we become a society that's okay with TLS inspection "because security and compliance" but not okay with recorded phone calls? It's a crock of crap. Traditionally, the social value of whatever enterprise wants to engage in that type of spying would need to out-weight the fundamental right to privacy of all its employees. And you'd of course need to demonstrate that e.g. TLS inspection is actually required to sustain that immense value. Laws exist to make unethical creepy things also illegal things. You don't get a pass on being subject to limits on your ability delete the privacy of other citizens just because you're not the government. At least not in my book. And it's not really how things work. Your employer can't make hiring decisions based on protected classes or political alignment. So why should they be allowed to subject you to undue invasion of privacy? Is Civil Rights Act the only relevant legal framework these days?

gruez 2y ago
>So how in the world have we become a society that's okay with TLS inspection "because security and compliance" but not okay with recorded phone calls? What are you talking about? Call center workers are recorded all the time. People working in finance must conduct work conversations on a monitored medium, lest they get smacked by the SEC. https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/50dc5bd3/unmonitored-business-communications-in-financial-services https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publication... If you don't want the company to monitor your instagram browsing, do it from your phone, not your work machine.
- consteval 2y ago
  Wiretapping is largely illegal except for some specific clauses for specific types of work. But generally, your employer is not allowed to arbitrarily record your phone calls.

impish9208 2y ago

Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41936906 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41936906

m463 2y ago

wsj just says "Please enable JS and disable any ad blocker" So here's a direct link: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes-action-to-curb-unchecked-worker-surveillance/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes...

throwaway743 2y ago

Never connect a personal device to an employer's network, whether it be wifi or VPN. Never log into personal accounts on an employer's devices (work phone, computer, etc) or networks. Avoid using a company vehicle for personal needs. Never say anything you wouldn't say in a higher up's or coworker's presence over slack, email, any communication platform used by coworkers and/or owned/authorized by an employer. This kind of monitoring happens, all your shit will be pryed on (personal accounts or otherwise), it's very common (in the US), it will be used against you, it is legal (in the US). This is a warning not just from personal experience, but it's also been the experience of many others. Germany is one of the only (maybe is the only?) countries that has made this kind of bullshit illegal.