4 ms·

It’s possible with digital tech, always on mics, and remote work that absolutely every communication within a company could be recorded forever. Would humanity

It’s possible with digital tech, always on mics, and remote work that absolutely every communication within a company could be recorded forever. Would humanity be better off? Or are people stupider when they are thinking out loud in front of recording devices? How much do the lawyers deserve to know?

bananapub 2y ago
you don't need to wonder, go and read up on the madness that is Bridgewater Associates
- josefritzishere 2y ago
  wtf https://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-associates-management-principles-training-2016-8#-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-associates-manag...
  - calmbonsai 2y ago
    As much as I think Dalio's "principles" are a "good thing" for personal practices they don't scale to groups--let alone a corporation. All of these "radical transparency" and "radical honesty" practices are just justifications for being lackadaisical about the nuances of human relations.
  - tdeck 2y ago
    https://archive.is/SB7J9 https://archive.is/SB7J9
xnx 2y ago
> every communication within a company could be recorded forever. Within 15 years we will probably wear a necklace or other device that will record [at least the audio] of our entire lives. This will have a number of positive benefits (memory augmentation, etc.) but also as train data for AI.
- jakubmazanec 2y ago
  Did you read The Circle? I definitely won't wear any such devices.
  - Moru 2y ago
    Any more specific than just "The Circle"? The one by M.J. Trow does not really sound so fitting. Are you talking about Dave Eggers? Is this a read recommendation? :-)
    - atvrager 2y ago
      Yes, I'd imagine they're talking about the Eggers book in this case -- it's a decent enough read imo.
- Syonyk 2y ago
  No. Some people will. Others will refuse, and very likely refuse to interact with people with such devices. The "gargoyles" of Snow Crash (people living their lives with full recording devices on them at all times to upload to the metaverse) were not well liked. And lest we forget more recent history, the term "Glassholes" came into existence to refer similarly to people with "I don't know if their camera/mic on their face is recording me or not!" devices on their heads.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > And lest we forget more recent history, the term "Glassholes" came into existence to refer similarly to people with "I don't know if their camera/mic on their face is recording me or not!" devices on their heads. That was during the same years when SOPA/PIPA inspired half the companies on the internet to go black in protest, the same companies which now fold over in response to authoritarian demands from governments. We now live in a very different world than that one.
  - elygre 2y ago
    A quote I often remember -- don't know the source: > We live in a unique moment in time. Cameras are everywhere, and we can see them. Previously, they were not there. In the future, we will not be able to see them.
wkat4242 2y ago
> How much do the lawyers deserve to know? Nothing IMO. They can look at the company's actions. There's no need to invade the privacy of individual employees. If they were trying to confiscate my personal mobile that I use for work I will never go along with that. Luckily I live in Europe where the atmosphere is far less litigious.
- marssaxman 2y ago
  > If they were trying to confiscate my personal mobile that I use for work That is a good reason never to use your personal mobile for work! If you really need a phone to do your job, your employer should be paying for it anyway.
  - doubled112 2y ago
    Exactly. People look at me like I have two heads when I tell them that my work devices are for work things and personal devices are for personal things. There are very rare exceptions to this rule.
- vineyardmike 2y ago
  > Luckily I live in Europe where the atmosphere is far less litigious. Not if your name is Google Inc. > Nothing IMO. They can look at the company's actions. There's no need to invade the privacy of individual employees. This refers to employees communicating in a work setting not personal communications. Not saying there should be cameras in the bathroom but if you’re talking to coworkers on an @google email about work… it feels hard to justify saying it’s private.
  - Brian_K_White 2y ago
    People are still human beings even while at work. There is a limit to how much an employer owns a person, even when they are an employee, even when they are in the building, even when they are on the clock. Employers try to push that as far as they can get away with, so there are current examples of employees being treated worse than cattle that should be illegal and probably is, but that is just employers overreaching and getting away with it because of the usual power discrepency. And my point with all that is the rest of us have no right to anything the employer has no right to.
pydry 2y ago
Better to just have a website for anonymous tip offs where you can download a private key and collect a fat reward if it ends up being used for a prosecution. Or we could do the opposite and have corporate whistleblowers like the boeing ones mysteriously die off while everyone just makes jokes about it.

bananapub 2y ago

you don't need to wonder, go and read up on the madness that is Bridgewater Associates

josefritzishere 2y ago
wtf https://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-associates-management-principles-training-2016-8#-2 https://www.businessinsider.com/bridgewater-associates-manag...
- calmbonsai 2y ago
  As much as I think Dalio's "principles" are a "good thing" for personal practices they don't scale to groups--let alone a corporation. All of these "radical transparency" and "radical honesty" practices are just justifications for being lackadaisical about the nuances of human relations.
- tdeck 2y ago
  https://archive.is/SB7J9 https://archive.is/SB7J9

xnx 2y ago

> every communication within a company could be recorded forever. Within 15 years we will probably wear a necklace or other device that will record [at least the audio] of our entire lives. This will have a number of positive benefits (memory augmentation, etc.) but also as train data for AI.

jakubmazanec 2y ago
Did you read The Circle? I definitely won't wear any such devices.
- Moru 2y ago
  Any more specific than just "The Circle"? The one by M.J. Trow does not really sound so fitting. Are you talking about Dave Eggers? Is this a read recommendation? :-)
  - atvrager 2y ago
    Yes, I'd imagine they're talking about the Eggers book in this case -- it's a decent enough read imo.
Syonyk 2y ago
No. Some people will. Others will refuse, and very likely refuse to interact with people with such devices. The "gargoyles" of Snow Crash (people living their lives with full recording devices on them at all times to upload to the metaverse) were not well liked. And lest we forget more recent history, the term "Glassholes" came into existence to refer similarly to people with "I don't know if their camera/mic on their face is recording me or not!" devices on their heads.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > And lest we forget more recent history, the term "Glassholes" came into existence to refer similarly to people with "I don't know if their camera/mic on their face is recording me or not!" devices on their heads. That was during the same years when SOPA/PIPA inspired half the companies on the internet to go black in protest, the same companies which now fold over in response to authoritarian demands from governments. We now live in a very different world than that one.
- elygre 2y ago
  A quote I often remember -- don't know the source: > We live in a unique moment in time. Cameras are everywhere, and we can see them. Previously, they were not there. In the future, we will not be able to see them.

wkat4242 2y ago

> How much do the lawyers deserve to know? Nothing IMO. They can look at the company's actions. There's no need to invade the privacy of individual employees. If they were trying to confiscate my personal mobile that I use for work I will never go along with that. Luckily I live in Europe where the atmosphere is far less litigious.

marssaxman 2y ago
> If they were trying to confiscate my personal mobile that I use for work That is a good reason never to use your personal mobile for work! If you really need a phone to do your job, your employer should be paying for it anyway.
- doubled112 2y ago
  Exactly. People look at me like I have two heads when I tell them that my work devices are for work things and personal devices are for personal things. There are very rare exceptions to this rule.
vineyardmike 2y ago
> Luckily I live in Europe where the atmosphere is far less litigious. Not if your name is Google Inc. > Nothing IMO. They can look at the company's actions. There's no need to invade the privacy of individual employees. This refers to employees communicating in a work setting not personal communications. Not saying there should be cameras in the bathroom but if you’re talking to coworkers on an @google email about work… it feels hard to justify saying it’s private.
- Brian_K_White 2y ago
  People are still human beings even while at work. There is a limit to how much an employer owns a person, even when they are an employee, even when they are in the building, even when they are on the clock. Employers try to push that as far as they can get away with, so there are current examples of employees being treated worse than cattle that should be illegal and probably is, but that is just employers overreaching and getting away with it because of the usual power discrepency. And my point with all that is the rest of us have no right to anything the employer has no right to.

pydry 2y ago

Better to just have a website for anonymous tip offs where you can download a private key and collect a fat reward if it ends up being used for a prosecution. Or we could do the opposite and have corporate whistleblowers like the boeing ones mysteriously die off while everyone just makes jokes about it.