Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which countries don’t allow a company to monitor activity on company equipment and company networks during company time?
The idea that 'company time' and 'company equipment' gives the company absolute right to record and ownership of recording is almost feudal. Imagine I were to die in the office in some embarrasing way, on company time, in full view of company CCTV, do they have the right to upload the video to YouTube to make money from it? What if they record audio of me at home, can they publish it? Can they show it to anyone at th…
Glassdoor not so anonymous
411–420 of 507 posts
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminder that libel vs truth is dependent on where you are. In the US you don’t risk libel when speaking the truth but there are places where this isn’t the case.
My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel. You are saying this isn’t the case in some places outside the US. Which places, and how so?
In Sweden for example there is publisher responsibility which can limit truthful but harmful statement. Anti-doxxing laws has a similar purpose. There are also countries where people have a right to be forgotten, especially once a person has served their time in prison.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#413Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which countries don’t allow a company to monitor activity on company equipment and company networks during company time?
Most of developed countries except the US. People have legitimate expectations of privacy in the office and/or during working time. Employment means selling your skills and effort, not becoming a servant or a slave in a feudal society. Additionally, having delicate information in the hands of the company in general or sysadm/security engineers create a ton of liabilities. There has to be a balance between security ne…
That requires them to use tools which can easily let them know, for instance, what websites someone is visiting, and what executables are executing on the machine, what devices are being accessed and when, etc.
It’s pretty fundamental. An individual looking to secure their machine would need to do the same thing.
If a company abuses that to spy on every waking moment of an employee, that is obviously abusive (barring cases of investigating legitimate suspected abuse by the employee I guess?). But you’d need to somehow codify in law the line, and I haven’t see anyone having any success here so far.
I have seen employees steal massive amounts of trade secrets, secretly steal customers from employers, run porn sites from company equipment, etc.
I’ve also seen employees so creepy stuff like stalking customers, stalking other employees, harassing other employees using this tech too.
Personally, I’ve always kept employer laptops and stuff closed and off when not used, and try to segregate personal and work equipment, but that’s been more to avoid something embarrassing coming up during a presentation or the like.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminder that libel vs truth is dependent on where you are. In the US you don’t risk libel when speaking the truth but there are places where this isn’t the case.
My understanding is that a statement can only be found to be libellous if it is false. If it’s true, it’s not libel. You are saying this isn’t the case in some places outside the US. Which places, and how so?
And if it affects the state, truth wasn't/isn't always a defense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seditious_libel?wprov=sfla1
And in other legal systems, the value of truth depends on whether the case is a private or public one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation?wprov=sfla1
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#415Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor.
No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers involved (or that the company climate is of that toxic kind that sues its own disgruntled employees more generally).
In the end suing will end up acting as the ultimate bad review for that company on the site.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#416Once had a contract where my client wanted me to do "security work", which was initially meant to be for pentesting their clients, but it turned into me building their wifi auth system. At some point in the gig, one of their clients went to them asking them if it was possible to de-anonymize someone glassdoor review since someone still-employed worked with them. They then went to me to see if I could do it for them.…
Another query you can use for another kind of alert is "Glassdoor Alert: Inflated Reviews site:glassdoor.com" for companies that were caught trying to fake positive reviews to flood out negative ones.
The place was a toxic personality cult around the owner/manager, and I left a Glassdoor review saying as much. Someone at the company found it within a couple months, and then overnight several current employees had posted glowing reviews refuting mine. Certainly we wouldn't expect a personality cult to launch an Internet brigade to protect the boss' ego.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#417Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#418This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#419Once had a contract where my client wanted me to do "security work", which was initially meant to be for pentesting their clients, but it turned into me building their wifi auth system. At some point in the gig, one of their clients went to them asking them if it was possible to de-anonymize someone glassdoor review since someone still-employed worked with them. They then went to me to see if I could do it for them.…
* psyops: running/scurrying in your periphery
mentioning personal things from your personal/sex life yesterday, but addressed to others
compliment you for bad work, berate for good work
silent treatment
throwing out your performant code and replacing it with trash
employees one after each other, one by one turn against you, trying to give you the impression you are going insane... imagine you talk with someone on a daily basis and then all of a sudden he refuses to interact with you or gives you looks and avoiding you
slamming doors
doing borderline insane things before you, like getting elbow deep in the toilet then smiling at you
pretend face to face that nothing happened
"oldworld" things
etc etc
This oppressive system must be burned down, nuked big time.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#420This is actually an amazing opportunity for Glassdoor. Just put a "badge" next to companies known to sue employees who post reviews on Glassdoor. No reviews are even needed from that point on to signify a shitty company; for all anyone knows all negative reviews may have been taken down through legal action, but the badge stays, signifying that there was at least one review so damaging that they had to get lawyers in…