5 ms·

I'll be the contrarian here. I think the program was legal and morally fine. Take into account that these are corporate computers, and the tracking is of work

by TZubiri 4mo ago

I'll be the contrarian here. I think the program was legal and morally fine. Take into account that these are corporate computers, and the tracking is of work that the company is paying for, so the telemetry, which is highly valuable for analysis and automation, is rightfully theirs. I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal? In any other job managers can, and are expected to, monitor employee productivity, they are paying for it, they need to ensure they are getting something worth. But again, I don't think that was the main goal here. The computers are not intended for personal usage, if the employee wants to watch netflix, or porn, they are free to do so in their personal computers. Imagine if this were a construction company, and there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all? So yeah, maybe a lot of people see Meta and computer tracking and immediately jump to 1984, but I kind of like nuance more than knee jerk reactions, or jumping into a narrative that we enjoy being angry about.

tmpz22 4mo ago
> I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal? This is the cost of losing consumer trust over two decades of untrustworthy acts.
survivalcrziest 4mo ago
As it turns out, they did watch porn: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/meta-says-porn-downloads-on-its-ips-were-for-personal-use-not-ai-training/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/meta-says-porn-d...
zenoprax 4mo ago
> Doesn't it sound reasonable? If you were hired with this as an explicit expectation, yes. It's one thing to know that your actions can be audited in case there's some sort of incident but imposing unlimited surveillance and using that information for the purpose of eliminating your job could be argued to be intimidation (ie. "we can't afford mass layoffs but aggressively monitoring employees will force the undesirables to quit"). No one likes the terms of their employment being changed against their will no matter how legal it might be. Why not make it opt-in in exchange for some other perks? If the data is valuable then compensate employees for the added burden/liability of total telemetry.
- otterley 4mo ago
  I’m not sure the terms of their employment changed; being subject to monitoring has been in practically every employment agreement written in the past few decades. What did change is the culture and environment. While that term was always in the agreement, it was largely dormant, activated on an as-needed basis to troubleshoot issues, collect evidence for disciplinary actions or security investigations, etc. Now, it’s on 24x7.
- calgoo 4mo ago
  Make it opt-in in exchange for more working from home time, then they can disprove the "people are unproductive when working from home" BS.
applfanboysbgon 4mo ago
Nope. Nope nope nope NOPE. No part of this is remotely reasonable. Stop normalising mass surveillance. It is not okay. Not even your own employees, to this degree. Employees are humans too (maybe not the ones at Meta, but I'm speaking in general). Just because somebody is receiving a paycheck for something does not make them fair game for anything and everything to be done to them. > there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all? Yes. Every time these analogies to normalise mass surveillance are brought up, they mistake "another human or two can see you doing something in real time" with "a permanent record of every single action you ever take in your entire life, micromanaged down to the millisecond, accessible to many people over a period of years". That is, in fact, very different at all.
- otterley 4mo ago
  Do you believe that police should have their activities monitored at work? How about child care workers? Nuclear power plant operators? Bank tellers? And if those are ok, what makes them different?
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - Lio 4mo ago
    They’re different because of the job they do, who’s doing the monitoring and who has access to the records. In all the examples you’ve given the monitoring is used to reduce the power imbalance between the public and vested interests with their own agenda. For example, so the bank teller doesn’t steal from account holders. For child care workers it’s to protect children in care. If it was used solely to gather information to fire potential whistleblowers people would have a problem with it too. Considering that, for example, Meta management have a record of encouraging their staff to break copyright laws and lie about it, this surveillance probably isn’t designed to help society as a whole.
    - 4mo ago
rainbow13 4mo ago
[flagged]
- intended 4mo ago
  Not an acceptable response, ever.
  - tonyedgecombe 4mo ago
    True, I really can't get with this trend of not capitalising the first letter of a sentence.
cadamsdotcom 4mo ago
Hats off to you for sticking your neck out. Regardless if I agree, or anyone agrees - it is great to see a willing contrarian. To all outraged HN readers considering a downvote: Downvote is for non-constructive comments, not stuff you disagree with.
- tonyedgecombe 4mo ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560543

by TZubiri 4mo ago

tmpz22 4mo ago

> I also don't think that the purpose of the move was to manage workers and see if they slack off, it was to gather training data, but even if it were, I think that's normal? This is the cost of losing consumer trust over two decades of untrustworthy acts.

survivalcrziest 4mo ago

As it turns out, they did watch porn: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/meta-says-porn-downloads-on-its-ips-were-for-personal-use-not-ai-training/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/10/meta-says-porn-d...

zenoprax 4mo ago

> Doesn't it sound reasonable? If you were hired with this as an explicit expectation, yes. It's one thing to know that your actions can be audited in case there's some sort of incident but imposing unlimited surveillance and using that information for the purpose of eliminating your job could be argued to be intimidation (ie. "we can't afford mass layoffs but aggressively monitoring employees will force the undesirables to quit"). No one likes the terms of their employment being changed against their will no matter how legal it might be. Why not make it opt-in in exchange for some other perks? If the data is valuable then compensate employees for the added burden/liability of total telemetry.

otterley 4mo ago
I’m not sure the terms of their employment changed; being subject to monitoring has been in practically every employment agreement written in the past few decades. What did change is the culture and environment. While that term was always in the agreement, it was largely dormant, activated on an as-needed basis to troubleshoot issues, collect evidence for disciplinary actions or security investigations, etc. Now, it’s on 24x7.
calgoo 4mo ago
Make it opt-in in exchange for more working from home time, then they can disprove the "people are unproductive when working from home" BS.

applfanboysbgon 4mo ago

Nope. Nope nope nope NOPE. No part of this is remotely reasonable. Stop normalising mass surveillance. It is not okay. Not even your own employees, to this degree. Employees are humans too (maybe not the ones at Meta, but I'm speaking in general). Just because somebody is receiving a paycheck for something does not make them fair game for anything and everything to be done to them. > there's a foreman watching the employees output, and the machine operators have their actions logged so that the machines can be automated in the future. Doesn't it sound reasonable? Is this very different at all? Yes. Every time these analogies to normalise mass surveillance are brought up, they mistake "another human or two can see you doing something in real time" with "a permanent record of every single action you ever take in your entire life, micromanaged down to the millisecond, accessible to many people over a period of years". That is, in fact, very different at all.

otterley 4mo ago
Do you believe that police should have their activities monitored at work? How about child care workers? Nuclear power plant operators? Bank tellers? And if those are ok, what makes them different?
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- Lio 4mo ago
  They’re different because of the job they do, who’s doing the monitoring and who has access to the records. In all the examples you’ve given the monitoring is used to reduce the power imbalance between the public and vested interests with their own agenda. For example, so the bank teller doesn’t steal from account holders. For child care workers it’s to protect children in care. If it was used solely to gather information to fire potential whistleblowers people would have a problem with it too. Considering that, for example, Meta management have a record of encouraging their staff to break copyright laws and lie about it, this surveillance probably isn’t designed to help society as a whole.
  - 4mo ago

rainbow13 4mo ago

[flagged]

intended 4mo ago
Not an acceptable response, ever.
- tonyedgecombe 4mo ago
  True, I really can't get with this trend of not capitalising the first letter of a sentence.

cadamsdotcom 4mo ago

Hats off to you for sticking your neck out. Regardless if I agree, or anyone agrees - it is great to see a willing contrarian. To all outraged HN readers considering a downvote: Downvote is for non-constructive comments, not stuff you disagree with.

tonyedgecombe 4mo ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560543 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43560543