| ▲ | PradeetPatel 9 hours ago |
| Tbh that's to be expected, the work machine is the company's property and there shouldn't be any expectation of privacy. I work at a tech firm in India, and we are encouraged to create skills.md based on the traits of our colleagues, with the intention of reducing key personnel risk. A handful of engineers were let go as the result of a re-alignment, and their AI counterparts are actively maintaining their code. I wonder if this is where they are going. |
|
| ▲ | piker 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > A handful of engineers were let go as the result of a re-alignment, and their AI counterparts are actively maintaining their code. Feel like I'm reading a Gibson novel here. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jedbrown an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Strong disagree (especially under US law). Consider what this means for union organizing in the context of this 2022 NLRB memo. > Under settled Board law, numerous practices employers may engage in using new
surveillance and management technologies are already unlawful. In cases involving
employer observation of open protected concerted activity and public union activity like
picketing or handbilling, the Board has recognized that “pictorial recordkeeping tends to
create fear among employees of future reprisals.”10 The Board accordingly balances an
employer’s justification for surveillance “against the tendency of that conduct to interfere with employees’ right to engage in concerted activity.”11 In that context, “the Board has long held that absent proper justification, the photographing of employees engaged in protected concerted activities violates the Act because it has a tendency to intimidate.”12 https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/nlrb-general-c... |
|
| ▲ | jaapz 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There shouldn't be any expectation of privacy? There absolutely should! |
| |
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Whether they should or shouldn't, you have to expect that your company has root on your work device or at least some sort of corporate admin profile that gives them access to everything on the device and all attached peripherals. This has been pretty standard at IT / tech companies for as long as I've been in the workforce. I personally wouldn't do anything personal on a work computer, from sending personal E-mails all the way up to storing nudes on it. Why do that when a separate personal computer is cheap and solves the problem entirely? EDIT: I remember, an example of this actually came up a while ago on HN. An Apple employee had to return a device unwiped, due to legal discovery, but the device had intimate pictures on it[1]. Oops! Don't do that, people. 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28241917 | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | On a work computer? No there shouldn't and isn't. | | |
| ▲ | whateverboat 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is Stockholm syndrome. Sure, you can enforce zero privacy on work computers, it will just lead to shitty work culture and lowered productivity. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | cyclopeanutopia 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | > employee communications are already monitored everywhere proof? > Turns out people actually don't really care about privacy at work lol, won't ask for proof, because it's trivially falsifiable | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Ask your IT department what they're tracking and they'll tell you. And yet I assume you still continue to go to work or do not actively seek out non-surveiling companies. By "everybody," maybe iI should clarify that it’s "majority" instead. | | |
| ▲ | Liskni_si 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | What if "the IT department" is just this one guy who asks me to Cc him an invoice when I buy a laptop and that's the end of it? (yes that's a real story from my career, and the company was 100+ employees at the time) | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's fine but realize you are not representative of the average tech worker or indeed any white collar worker such as those we are talking about in this post. |
|
| |
| ▲ | francoisdevlin 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | As an old hand that's managed many people, I can tell you this is true. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | cyclopeanutopia 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why not? How about a company-owned toilet? It's their property as well. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | You're right, maybe they should put cameras in there too. But there's a reason we don't yet every worker still explicitly or implicitly knows not to use their work computer for personal tasks, as people can and do get fired for doing so. | | |
| ▲ | cyclopeanutopia 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | This is a ridiculous statement. Everyone I know at my company uses work laptops for personal stuff. It's not in the land of freedom though, so great leaders like yourself can't fire people at will. TBH at this point I don't believe you are a real person. | | |
| ▲ | BoneShard 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I stopped doing any personal stuff on a work laptop long time ago, like 10+ years ago. There is absolutely nothing on my work laptop which is not work related. Working from home though helps, I always have my laptop next to me. Same with the phone, under no circumstances I will do anything work related on my personal phone (and yes I do have a company provided phone with MDM and etc). | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Consider, do they ever go on explicit websites on that computer? No? Because they know that's surveiled while a personal computer for the same purpose is not. As I said, people do know the difference and might do light personal things like googling something unrelated to work but wouldn't do e.g. banking on a work computer. If they do, well, it'll be their fault if they ever get fired for doing so. The fact that you don't believe people who don't share your same opinion on mixing work and personal stuff are somehow not "real" is part of the problem. | | |
| ▲ | seanp2k2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Most companies just don't have a reason to look through the computer they're letting you use to do your job. Don't give them a reason. Maximizing shareholder value by observing you doing job in the pursuit of replacing you with a very small shell script is a great reason that they've just discovered. Get your own laptop, pay for your own cellphone, use your own internet service, etc. If you create anything of value on their property or with their property or during times they're paying you in any capacity, expect them to use it for profit. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exactly, no one is stopping one from using their personal devices for any personal purpose, and the fact that somehow people are defending wanting to do personal things on a work laptop is utterly baffling to me. Like another commenter said, I always grew up with the notion, legal and social, that a company laptop is absolutely not your property and companies can and will look through it. Use your own devices for your own tasks. |
| |
| ▲ | Ifkaluva 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | People get fired for banking on a work computer? Whaaat, no way | |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | kaashif 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm not American or in America, but I wouldn't use a work laptop for anything personal. I mean I have my own laptop and phone, why would I use a work device for that stuff? | | |
| ▲ | cesarb 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > I mean I have my own laptop and phone, why would I use a work device for that stuff? Because you're traveling for work, and carrying two separate laptops eats into your limited baggage size/weight. Things are marginally better now that everything uses the same standard charger, but not much. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | rebolek 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe we should also call it labor camp. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | kube-system 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It might surprise you, but culturally, not all companies are this way. I know some are, but some are very different. 100% of the people at my company use their computer for personal tasks, and this is permissible under our policies. Our company is fully BYOD and owns zero computers, and zero cell phones. | |
| ▲ | AgentOrange1234 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That sounds like a truly dystopian take to me, but suppose you're right and nobody should ever use their work computer for anything personal. Per TFA, this thing is literally taking screenshots of what is on the employee's screen. At work my screen sometimes had things such as: performance data on other employees, my own PII from HR systems, PII from customers, password managers, etc. It's also logging keystrokes. How many times do you type passwords a day. Collecting that kind of information on purpose is truly wild. Imagine the security safeguards you would need just to prevent it from leaking. Wait what, they're explicitly collecting it to train LLMs with it? God help us all. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Your screenshots go to your managers, not just anyone in the company. At Meta there are very strict safeguards for preventing employees e.g. stalking their exes, so I'd assume the same security is used for even PII filled images. | | |
| ▲ | lazide 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Bwahaha. The same protections the NSA has? The ones on the ‘inside’ are doing to 500% of the time I’m sure | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | sho_hn 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In most civilized countries you absolutely do have significant rights to privacy on a work computer. | |
| ▲ | rexpop 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I spend the majority of my adult life working, and you're telling me I should spend it surveilled? | | |
| ▲ | seanp2k2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You already do and your consent is part of your employment. Check your employee handbook, search for things like "data privacy" and understand how https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf applies in the modern world, especially around AI. TL;DR companies can do whatever they want with your work / observe you and you have no real meaningful recourse. | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Im pretty surprised you're getting so much flak for this. This is the least controversial opinion I've seen on HN. I've been working for ~30 years, and every job I've had, if you actually looked at the IT policies, they were all very clear that work devices were for work, personal devices were for personal stuff. It wouldn't even occur to me to cross the streams. Carrying a second phone for personal stuff is a trivial burden. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I'm also very surprised, so much so that one of my comments got flagged for it. Seems like it's a few dissenters while others have mentioned concurring with this fact as I also have always been under the impression that work hardware is for work only. And then some people are talking about how it's authoritarian or anti human, like, it's not that deep. | |
| ▲ | fc417fc802 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > every job I've had, if you actually looked at the IT policies, they were all very clear that work devices were for work, personal devices were for personal stuff There's quite a difference between that and zero privacy, and there's also quite a difference between "IT policy says" or "the law permits" and "this is how things ought to be". That said, between necessary endpoint security and the potential to get caught up in corporate legal disputes I feel like maintaining a strict separation is advisable. But that doesn't mean I support unnecessarily invasive surveillance or think it's a good thing. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | xpe 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | /facepalm If we're going to debate norms and ethics, sending one liners into cyberspace won't get far. There are better ways. Invest in your conversational skills and listening skills, please. Otherwise you are a moth and HN is a streetlamp. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | euroderf 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > the work machine is the company's property and there shouldn't be any expectation of privacy. A bogus argument, methinks. Consider that the company also owns the phones, but can or do they listen to every phone call ? |
| |
|
| ▲ | futuraperdita 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > A handful of engineers were let go as the result of a re-alignment, and their AI counterparts are actively maintaining their code. I know you’re in India, but in the US, could this not be considered intellectual property theft on “right of publicity”? Your persona and working style is one of your core values you bring to market; building a simulacrum of that is not something I expect to be part of the “your output is the company’s IP” in an existing contract. I will give a company the right to try to reproduce my output. But my very likeness and modus operandi? No. |
| |
| ▲ | vinni2 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | For what it’s worth I heard from a manager in Meta that they are doing this too. | |
| ▲ | seanp2k2 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >I will give a company the right to try to reproduce my output. But my very likeness and modus operandi? No. You don't need to "give" them anything -- they already have everything they need due to basically anything you do, especially at work, especially while using company equipment, being legally considered "works made for hire" https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html + https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ30.pdf Here's how a refusal to them doing whatever they think would maximize shareholder value with any of your output or data they collect from your company computer would actually go down: the company would do something you didn't like, you'd try to complain about it, HR would listen and document everything. In the best-possible case, they'd let you personally opt out. More likely, since you're likely very easy to replace in their minds, they'd refer you to their data privacy clauses in their acceptable usage policy section of the employee handbook, maybe reference the notice sent out to everyone about how they're doing this, then fire you for performance reasons a few months later. You'd be given an NDA and a very average severance, then you could choose to try to hire a lawyer (who would take at least a third of any pre-tax settlement amount) and fight them, in which case they'd settle for more or less the same as the severance package (and keep in mind both that and any court settlement are both taxable income, so you're not getting a windfall in any case), or you'd just sign the NDA and take the severance with no admission of wrongdoing on their part and no legal recourse. Large companies employ entire orgs of lawyers who specialize in these matters, and it is literally their job to protect the company, not the employees, from lawsuits like this. Is it fully legal and in the clear? Probably not. Will they still 100% get away with it and leave employees with no realistic options or upside attempting to fight it? Of course. Welcome to America, land of the free for corporations which are legally people, just ones with infinite lives who cannot be arrested / imprisoned but can make legal decisions but cannot be subpoenaed. See eg https://www.theverge.com/policy/886348/meta-glasses-ice-doxx... for how the C-suite thinks about this type of thing. Follow eg https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/aclu-and-75-organization... to see what actually happens. More on how "work for hire" applies in a legal sense: https://www.brookskushman.com/insights/innovations-at-work-w... https://outsidegc.com/blog/common-misconceptions-about-the-w... https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/work_made_for_hire https://crownllp.com/blog/what-is-a-work-for-hire/ | | |
| ▲ | futuraperdita 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Is it fully legal and in the clear? Probably not. Will they still 100% get away with it and leave employees with no realistic options or upside attempting to fight it? Of course. I am aware of "how the C-Suite thinks about this type of thing", but this is also a good example to surface here of what to redline in future employment contracts. Yes, that will likely shut you out of a lot of places, but the opposite is beyond learned helplessness: it is capitulation to a future that will not end well for the tech worker. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | Reisen 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wait so the engineers doing novel work are ousted; you fire the engineer that had the skill set to produce the work in the first place? Surely this is creating a Stasi-like neighbour snitching environment with chilling effect where the better you do the faster you become a target for replacement by engineer's incentivized to win points by replacing you. Even being very charitable where the scenario is the code was so poor that the code the employee is working on is so entrenched in domain knowledge they've become a huge bus factor, an LLM is going to make that kind of code worse. I'm struggling to imagine the subset of people this replaces that is not a long term detriment to everyone working there. Those people became "key personnel" for a reason no? |
|
| ▲ | nickvec 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just speculating, but the intention wasn't reducing key personnel risk. It was so that your employer could fire them and replace them with an agent running off of their associated skills.md. |
| |
| ▲ | lazide 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Also, the agent doesn’t really work - but that doesn’t matter. |
|
|
| ▲ | Lihh27 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| skills.md heh they serialized you into a config file and used it to boot your replacement. could've at least picked a better extension. |
|
| ▲ | reaperducer 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Tbh that's to be expected, the work machine is the company's property and there shouldn't be any expectation of privacy. There remains a thing called human dignity. If a company can't trust the people it hires, that's a fault in the hiring process, not the employees. |
| |
| ▲ | trinsic2 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | No to disagree with you here because I wholly support this position. But I can see the problem from both angles. The problem, it seems to me, is that, and Im not sure which came first, employees started being reckless at work, probably because employers stopped caring about the treatment of their workers, which ramped up the viscous cycle to where we are now. I can see an argument for companies not trusting there employee's because most employees harbor borderline corrupt thinking in their work place and have terrible work ethics, of course all of this is brought on by corporate culture so its there fault in the first place, but im not exactly sure what started where. |
|
|
| ▲ | Hamuko 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >we are encouraged to create skills.md based on the traits of our colleagues Like that "Scott is an asswipe who never agrees to any idea that isn't his" or what? |
| |
|
| ▲ | IAmGraydon 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >A handful of engineers were let go as the result of a re-alignment, and their AI counterparts are actively maintaining their code. This is exactly what they're doing, and they aren't the only ones. |
|
| ▲ | JoshTriplett 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |