Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Guide to Slack import and export tools

get.slack.help

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 529 posts

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#271

Post by pcora »

crescentfresh wrote: post #196

On a semi-side topic: Canadian dev here, I always immediately hard delete e-mail correspondence (both inbox and sent) with HR on anything that I feel private about, as I don't want the guys in IT reading it. I know they don't, but I also know they can . For example, I might trust the head of IT but I might not trust that new intern or "new guy" they just hired. What do you guys do when it comes to HR correspondence a…

companies that care about that have email gateways that will store all messages, regardless of you saving/deleting them. this is not something they do at individuals inbox, to prevent what you do with the HR emails.

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#272

Post by detaro »

chimeracoder wrote: post #256
thomasz wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on national legislation, as well as individual contracts with unions or work councils. At least here, as a rule of thumb, as long as private internet use is permitted, the employer can't legally monitor traffic outside of very specific circumstances. AFAIK you can't get around that by prohibiting personal internet usage without generally enforcing that prohibition.

> At least here, as a rule of thumb, as long as private internet use is permitted, the employer can't legally monitor traffic outside of very specific circumstances. AFAIK you can't get around that by prohibiting personal internet usage without generally enforcing that prohibition. This isn't relevant here. ECHR has ruled that employers do have the right to read emails, as long as employees are notified in advance (w…

The ECHR has ruled that it is not a violation of human rights, that does not override national law that limits employers if it exists.

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#273

Post by bdowling »

alexandercrohde wrote: post #174
089723645897236 wrote: post #53

This is a good thing. People need to realize work chat is a paper trail...

A one-way paper trail in favor of the company. If a boss tells me I'm fired for being "too black" and then deletes my slack (and I don't have a screenshot), I'm not going to have any leverage to get proof unless I can get a subpoena (which I wouldn't be able to, most likely)

I think you’re wrong. A subpoena would probably be granted for a situation where you know that the relevant evidence exists and exactly where it is. But it might not come to that in the scenario you describe, since the employer would also know that a third party has this incredibly damning evidence and would likely try to settle.

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#274

Post by ggregoire »

I'm always surprised by the amount of DMs people send in Slack. I've worked in 2 companies using Slack and, in both, about 80% of the total messages were DMs. It seems crazy high to me. I wonder if people just send all day private stuff unrelated to work, or if people have trouble with trust and transparence on the workspace..

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#275

Post by vijayagrawal18 »

prewett wrote: post #251
peterkelly wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If two people want to have a private conversation, they'll just find another means by which to do it. In the long run, abusing your privileged access to conversations intended to be private (however justified you may consider it to be) will just breed mistrust among employees. I would quit a job that treated me as a child which must be supervised in such a manner.

So what would your solution to the OP's problem be? If harassment is happening, I expect the company has some legal requirement to act. I also expect that you support the company making a safe workplace. How does the company do that if it cannot verify that something is actually going on? Just blindly believe the accuser without confirming if it's true? Just disbelieve the accuser? Tell them to work it out themselves…

Ask the harassed person to show their slack to start with.

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#276

Post by dsacco »

ravitation wrote: post #252
dsacco wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And workplaces are socio-political contexts They're not governments, they're companies. > monitoring channels that even just imply privacy, regardless of whether they take place in the workplace (or in academia, or at home) is a violation of personal rights It isn't, unless your definition of "personal rights" includes "things I personally want which are neither codified in, nor protected by, laws."

In what way are companies not trivially compared to states (governments) in this context (surveillance)? You're being intellectually disingenuous. I mean, you completely (amusingly) misquoted that sentence. I said "it isn't hard to argue that [...]". I did not make an absolute statement that it is (a violation)... Come on now.

> You're being intellectually disingenuous.

Okay...let me see if I understand you correctly. You're defending the other commenter's description of corporate logs as totalitarian surveillance, but you're saying that I'm being intellectually disingenuous because I'm pointing out that companies are not governments?

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#277

Post by chimeracoder »

detaro wrote: post #272
chimeracoder wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At least here, as a rule of thumb, as long as private internet use is permitted, the employer can't legally monitor traffic outside of very specific circumstances. AFAIK you can't get around that by prohibiting personal internet usage without generally enforcing that prohibition. This isn't relevant here. ECHR has ruled that employers do have the right to read emails, as long as employees are notified in advance (w…

The ECHR has ruled that it is not a violation of human rights, that does not override national law that limits employers if it exists.

> The ECHR has ruled that it is not a violation of the convention on human rights, that does not override national law that limits employers if it exists.

It doesn't override national law, but national law is pretty consistently clear that employers have this right as well - that's why the case was before the ECHR in the first place.

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#279

Post by afastow »

dsacco wrote: post #231
afastow wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the material difference between having employees save DM logs in an auditable, authenticated way and being able to view employee DMs? > When you are reviewing an auditable log of information related to an employee, you don't necessarily want to have to ask the employee for that information, nor do you necessarily want them to know you're reviewing it. You just answered your own question. You might not want…

> You might not want them to know you're reviewing it but they most certainly do want to know that you are. Of course they want to know. Everyone wants to know. But if they committed a crime, or at least are complicit in a lawsuit the company is facing, their desire for privacy on an information channel they don't own is irrelevant. I don't understand why this is controversial. When the SEC, FBI, local police, opposi…

Maybe I missed some context but since when are we talking about committing crimes and the SEC or FBI getting involved? If it's that serious I assume they'd just get a warrant and get the logs directly from Slack.

To me that scenario is completely unrelated to the ability of an employer to silently read DMs of their employees for any reason they see fit.

Re: Guide to Slack import and export tools

#280

Post by ravenstine »

tedivm wrote: post #224
peterkelly wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If two people want to have a private conversation, they'll just find another means by which to do it. In the long run, abusing your privileged access to conversations intended to be private (however justified you may consider it to be) will just breed mistrust among employees. I would quit a job that treated me as a child which must be supervised in such a manner.

I hate to tell you this but if you would quit a job for this reason you probably can't work in the US. The US has laws about corporate compliance, and it has requirements for things like dealing with sexual harassment. There is no such thing as a "private conversation" that takes place over a corporate network. For example, in the US sexual harassment is taken seriously. If a company gets a complaint of sexual harass…

That line or reasoning makes no sense. If that were true, then states like California couldn't make it illegal for companies to eavesdrop on its employees(e.g. recording audio, bugging offices). But allowing companies to read direct messages is very, very similar.

Also, what's preventing a victim of harassment from handing over the offending messages? I don't see how this helps anyone.

Post reply on HN