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

Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 312 posts

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#171

Post by _curious_ »

t-writescode wrote: post #167
_curious_ wrote: post #123

Everyone has a choice: yes or no. Consequences may vary, but then again, no-one is owed anything legally, morally, or otherwise so to act as though every individual does not have or exercise their own self-agency is disingenuous.

This comment ignores the very real material realities that many people have around being able to afford life at all. While it is fair that "no one is 'owed' anything, legally" - actually, even that's wrong, but I'll pretend it's right for the sake of argument, some people are in situations where there is a single job in town, they do not have the money to move, and they have kids to feed. They cannot quit.

"where there is a single job in town" could you please point to such town in the US?

Not having money to move and mouths to feed...that is whose responsibility/issue...an employers? A neighbors? Yours? Mine?

And yes, they can quit if they choose to. There will be trade-offs and consequences, but they 100% absolutely can quit!

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#172

Post by salawat »

_curious_ wrote: post #114

Counterthought: anyone who would knowingly and willingly install spyware on their personal computer deserves to lose their privacy.

Counter-counterthought: This does not fly; an enslavement or organ sale contract is invalid and unenforceable under U.S. law regardless of whether one may deem that the signer deserves it because we acknowledge that even entertaining the option causes a substantial societal harm merely by enabling the possibility of abuse.

I'm fairly certain this falls into the same vein. Even if not, there is likely no compensation being offered to the employee over and above their employment for what amounts to a "rental" of their personal device, which is not an asset of the company. The proper course of action on the employer's part is to enter into a good faith negotiation with the employee to come to an agreement on terms and conditions for leasing their personal equipment to the company which the employee is free to stipulate concessions and compensation, and dictate T&C's for, or the company pays for hardware to configure and issue as it pleases.

This is not new or unprecedented. This is how stuff has always worked. The difference is the degree to which management are now technologically enabled in terms of their indulgence of their personal neuroses.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#173

Post by _curious_ »

boo_boo wrote: post #139
_curious_ wrote: post #120

It's up to individuals as employees to decide if they want to subject themselves to this (agreed repulsive) treatment...what's with all these comments and sentiment in this thread acting like they have a gun to their head? JUST QUIT already if uncomfortable with whatever a given job entails should that include perceived invasive measures ie - surveillance.

You're out of touch with the reality for a large chunk of workers if you believe it's simple or even advisable for them to "just quit". We should be making the case for better conditions across the board, and this means not leaving it up to those in shitty situations to figure it out for themselves.

Who said it was simple?

But advisable, sure if you or anyone is not uncomfortable with what they are being subject to/asked to do as part of a job, YES, I would advise them to quit if deemed necessary.

Would you advise them to stay and subject themselves to they type of treatment they did not agree with?

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#174

Post by whydoyoucare »

HumblyTossed wrote: post #119
crispyambulance wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but is there a way you can tell?

Unless you have access to Admin and can see ALL processes running, then no. Well, I guess you could try and analyze all data leaving your computer... but is it worth it? If you're working from home, just use a different computer for non-work stuffs.

In my experience, there is no way you can tell -- even if you are an Admin -- not unless you are highly skilled and technically competent and possess detailed knowledge and understanding of computer and program behavior.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#175

Post by 101404 »

malux85 wrote: post #38
iask wrote: post #12

It’s old-fashion management. If you don’t understand your employees workload and don’t trust them then either you resign or fire the employees. Simple as that. I don’t see how this makes any employee productive. This adds more stress imo. An employee gives you 8 of their 12 hour day. Now, you tell me if that works only for you - the management. They’re people just like you. They have a life just like you. They have r…

Couldn't have said it better. One of the reasons I'm a supporter of universal basic income is so that the employees can have a better negotiating position. I suspect many bullshit rules will go out the window when the alternative to employment isn't destitution. For far too long has this negotiation been highly in favour of the employer.

You don't need UBI for that, just a healthy social welfare system, and a health insurance system that doesn't depend on the job.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#176

Post by sjperez »

Is anyone aware of any actual research on this issue? If so, what does it say? Do remote workers actually work less? Do intrusive monitoring apps improve productivity or decrease productivity?

I've always had the sense that people who work remote are perfectly capable of being productive without monitoring. In some ways, depending on your personal situation, being at home can be less distracting than being at the office. On any given day, I would bet that most people in an office only put in 3-4 hours of good work (or less). Much of the rest of the time is spent being distracted by office gossip, meetings, coffee breaks, etc. Why should we expect people working from home to put in 8 solid hours of good focused work when we don't demand the same of people in the office?

It would be nice to see some actual data on this problem. I have an instinct that this is a major overreaction by managers and that it will ultimately drive productivity and retention down. However, I'm open to being proved wrong if this is an issue that has been studied in a rigorous fashion.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#177

Post by gbmor »

chepaslaaa wrote: post #88
hangphyr wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a tangent, but one should be careful with that path. Not all employers are 'evil' and have negative intentions for their employees. Think of an example such as the independently owned restaurant that cannot afford to pay employees high wages and their owners are not wealthy. Just as not all employees can be painted as untrustworthy and hostile, not all employers should be painted as untrustworthy and…

I've been a line cook, restaurant owners are absolutely untrustworthy and hostile. The food industry is one where exploitation, highly aggressive staff retention practices (making employees dependent on you for a visa, threatening to spread lies about you, etc.), crazy unhealthy hours and just a generally awful culture are standard.

I've worked in the restaurant industry in the US. It's nothing short of horrifying, and often traumatizing for those involved.

I've seen no overtime pay happen, lies from management to get unemployment claims denied, management not actually firing people but just giving them zero or reduced hours to mess with the unemployment claim process, the VISA fuckery you mentioned, harrassment. Intentional scheduling of conflicting days for people with multiple jobs. Being made to work 7 days a week for long periods of time. Being made to repeatedly close late at night / early in the morning and then open the restaurant the next morning, a few hours later, and work a double. Being made to work while sick (this happens a lot).

A gold comment I heard from one manager was "I don't pay overtime because these motherfuckers already take enough of my money" (referring to the employees). This same guy was shaving time slips to keep them below 40 hours.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#178

Post by luckylion »

codemac wrote: post #166
luckylion wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds a bit dismissive. What if they realize "I'm not a super star, but I'm above average in these desired skills. Therefore I get a nice house, but no multi-acre villa like some NBA superstar". I think you're adding a bit too much personal animosity towards management.

And I think you're giving management too much credit. The vast majority of management does not have goals/behaviors they are measured in. I'm still fascinated that it's largely considered impossible to have a VP count how many 1:1's a manager had or how many times they gave positive vs. negative feedback. Imagine if no one kept any statistics for any sports player, and just say "it's too hard, you have to manually co…

I'm not giving management any credit, but I believe they have a pretty good idea why they are hired and paid well, and if it's just "because I've studied this and that, have those certifications and know how to use KPI in a sentence". I don't believe that managers by and large suffer from impostor syndrome and therefore try to gain control of their situation by adding surveillance because of fear.

They may have plenty of room for improvement, but their actions aren't motivated by "I don't know what I'm doing here", rather "I don't trust my employees enough to let them run free". That's a very different motivation and confusing the two will only lead to not understanding actions and reactions.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#179

Post by subhobroto »

Spivak wrote: post #144
subhobroto wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spot on. I am so surprised you've been downvoted to hell. Sometimes it seems basic economics is an alien concept.

Because you're applying a definition of freedom so absolutely and narrowly that it ceases to be useful. Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm. Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose. And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation…

> And theoretically at an absolute minimum any time you see a prisoners dilemma regulation is how you prevent it and make sure that everyone gets their preferred outcome.

I can assure you that not everyone is getting their preferred outcome. That's why the term "prisoners" instead of "willing teammates" are used here.

> Prohibiting outside doors from being locked in a factory increases my freedom as a worker to leave whenever I choose.

As a worker you always can leave whenever you choose. Past. Present. Future.

That does not mean you get to keep your job doing that.

Slaves too had the freedom to leave whenever they chose unless they were in chains. The only issue was the enforcement of certain labor contracts that have since been deemed illegal. To clarify, the slaves were treated as property just like you now treat your pets, in this day and age. If your pet was to flee you would capture it and offer rewards for its re-capture. The concept of it is still alive in this day and age. It's just not phrased in those specific terms.

Your mention of voluntary enslavement indicates you are well aware of what I mentioned and how modern society has just devised new means of enslavement while being compliant with anti-slavery regulations.

> Assault being illegal increases my freedom because I can freely walk down the street without threat of harm.

Absolutely not.

Making something illegal absolutely does not shield you against harm.

Making something legal absolutely does not shield you against harm either.

If you exercised your right of freedom of speech in San Francisco and serenaded Trump, you will see what I mean.

There is no magic cloak that protects you from "illegal" things.

If someone shot you with a machine gun - the former being a criminal activity with various levels of prosecution and the later being literally illegal in most practical sense in the U.S. - you are still shot and injured - illegal or not.

You are still hurt or dead.

The only concern at that point is whether the perpetrator is going to be first caught, and then prosecuted under the laws that make their activity liable for prosecution.

If they run away, tough luck - illegal and all that.

If you are a terrorist on the run, assault is no longer off the table. Saddam and Osama can speak a few words about that.

Any kind of weapons are illegal in Mexico, so it assault. Yet people die of both in Mexico.

Fact remains you are still hurt or dead irregardless of the agility of it.

You dont have the ability to arise from the ashes even if the method of your injury/mortality was illegal.

Physics and biology don't consult the roster of human idiosyncrasies. They follow the rules of science, illegal or not.

The moon rotated around the earth well before, during it was illegal to do so and it continues to.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#180

Post by subhobroto »

lonelappde wrote: post #137
papeda wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This style of writing where almost every sentence is its own line is weird to me. It's like writing in all caps -- if you emphasize every single point, then you emphasize none of them. Especially when it's a long post that takes up a bunch of space.

It's single column newspaper style. It's more readable on small screens.

> It's more readable on small screens

Yup!

With over a million views of my content, I have noticed that this style is preferred by an overwhelming majority of readers.

I am sure there are who disagree. I am explicitly open to open dialog with all my channels listed on my profile.

My focus is to reach people and listen to what they have to say.

My objective is to test the clarity of my thoughts and the best way to go about it, I feel, is to discuss it with someone who holds a contrarian view.

That said, I've been having a hard time doing that here on HN as once downvotes (which work like a silencing mechanism here) happen, I literally cant respond back until a few hours have passed since the last downvote.

Post reply on HN