4 ms·
I don't get your concern at all. We run local e-mail and IM servers; the only thing that protects user communications on company owned infrastructure is our co
by teacup50 13y ago
I don't get your concern at all.
We run local e-mail and IM servers; the only thing that protects user communications on company owned infrastructure is our company policy. How is this any different?
What I find far more alarming -- and quite hypocritical from SaaS users seemingly suddenly concerned with privacy -- is that when I communicate with companies and individuals that use SaaS providers like Google Apps, the party with which I'm communicating implicitly shares my private correspondence with a SaaS company that engages in massive cross-internet data collection.
By comparison, employers having access to data that flows over employer-owned infrastructure is barely worth mentioning, has been the status quo for decades, and I'm absolutely stunned that anyone is shocked by this.
- etchalon 13y agoYou honestly don't see the difference between the amount of interest a third-party software company would have in the private conversations of a team than the amount a person's immediate manager might have in them? Second, simply because something is "status quo" does not mean it's OK. As this is my company, I can chose to run it in a way that doesn't make me feel like an asshole.
- teacup50 13y agoYou're being disingenuous; it's the status quo because having the ability to monitor user communications is the default and inherent legal and technical nature of conveying communications over company owned infrastructure. If you don't want to "be an asshole", set a clear company policy and move on. Having been in the position of needing to access historical e-mail records while investigating CFO malfeasance and fraud, I'd say its downright irresponsible to not have the ability and policy necessary to monitor and review communications in extenuating circumstances.
- calibraxis 13y agoYou're looking at it from the perspective of malfeasance/fraud. The other poster is looking at it from teamwork/management. They're not being "disingenuous". Ironically, speaking of trust/management, criticizing people's personal motivations like that is precisely one thing I'm taught not to do, for effective, healthy teamwork. (Whereas, if I must investigate antagonistically, like if a boss is harassing employees, I must assume the possibility.)
- teacup50 13y agoNo, I'm looking at it from the perspective of simple rationality: SaaS does not mystically change the technical and legal nature of administrative access to communications over company controlled infrastructure. As for criticizing motivations, disingenuity was the more polite assumption compared to the alternative: that he is ignorant of the legal, technical, and historical context to the degree that he actually believes HipChat's changes are unique or novel or questionable in any way. Entities in a technologically privileged position are limited only by policy. The fact that he accepts that truth simply by relying on SaaS demonstrates the significant incongruity of logic at question here.
- etchalon 13y agoIt's hilarious that you're implying it's hard to understand that the guy with the server password has can read everything. I mean, really? The entire point of my protest to this change is specifically to stop either myself, or any member of management team from having a "technologically privilege position". Your arguments about SaaS are irrelevant and juvenile. Just cause Atlasssian, or any SaaS provider, has access doesn't mean I, or my management team, should. Saying "well we run our email server in house so we just solve this problem with a policy" is fine.
- teacup50 13y agoSo you're OK with SaaS being protected by policy, but not the behavior of your own company's executive staff and delegated administrators? Hardly seems irrelevant to me, and the free pass you give to SaaS is nonsensical and hypocritical.