461–470 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
threats are hardly a good reason for mass surveillance.
It's not mass surveillance. It's compliance with the rules governing preservation of records for legal discovery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you miss his first (the second) paragraph?
I don't know about parent, but I did notice that! I saw it clearly written there. I read it and understood it. I understand that the person who wrote it believes it is sufficient to cover all relevant needs. I would posit that this person may not be familiar with the importance of collecting evidence against possible future needs. An IT manager's testimony from memory, no matter how perfect, is not as useful as evide…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Certainly illegal in Norway. Hell, I've heard stories of corporate networks up here that MITM all their computers for security monitoring, and where the admins routinely see evidence of searches for sketchy pornography, but can't legally do anything because this kind of surveillance of your employees is illegal.
This isn't exactly true. Employees do have a higher right of privacy even when using company resources than they do in the US, but monitoring is allowed within certain parameters, and that can include searching email or other "private" storage spaces. Companies must still be able to comply with eDiscovery and data preservation requests from various police agencies (such as Økokrim), and these may be performed without…
The only opening for reading employees' communications that I can find by some quick googling, are (1) if there is good reason to believe that information contained there is required to keep the concern going or (2) if there is suspicion of serious dereliction of duties. And even then, there is a significant checklist required in order to do it legally. (Obviously, legal police requests can be fulfilled without necessarily alerting the owner).
My point being, this is a far cry from legally being able to go into anyone's communications immediately if need-be.
Are you aware of further openings than this, apart from the obvious in the case of a court-ordered request? I am basing this on the statement from Datatilsynet at https://www.datatilsynet.no/rettigheter-og-plikter/personver.... General monitoring would seem like a big no-no.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
because I dont see the difference between having direct conversation vs having electronic conversation in the office premises. why would there be different rules for them?
Because one of them is almost literally a paper trail and the other is ephemeral?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No? I'm being serious when I say this idea is absurd to me. If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? If you are going to use "We need to be checking for illegal activity" as a justification, why stop at DMs? Why not ask your employees to always be carrying around a recording device that is constantly sending their verbal co…
> If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? Because “we don’t hire criminals” is not sustainable, just like “we only hire the best engineers” is not realistic. Strive for the best scenario and prepare for the worst. > I'm assuming the answer is "expectation of privacy" or the lack-thereof for DMs, and I guess my response wou…
What is this declaration of rights for corporate eavesdropping?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the EU would have something to say about that: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/05/landmark-eu-ruli...
Yeah, they said it here[1], and basically, given cause and given notice, they can still access private communications on work property. So not exactly what you are implying. From the actual source: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Press_Q_A_Barbulescu_ENG....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you have a serious level of concern about your employees doing something illegal then why are they your employee in the first place? Because “we don’t hire criminals” is not sustainable, just like “we only hire the best engineers” is not realistic. Strive for the best scenario and prepare for the worst. > I'm assuming the answer is "expectation of privacy" or the lack-thereof for DMs, and I guess my response wou…
You pick the law of one of the weakest privacy jurisdictions and argue that Slack should standardize privacy on most invasive level this country's law allows. What is this declaration of rights for corporate eavesdropping?
in other news, I guess this means shadow IT is back in style! :P