Sad to see that were going to have to start using throwaway accounts to post anything on glassdoor. Next up: Blind.
Glassdoor not so anonymous
461–470 of 507 posts
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#462Man, apparently these founders have never heard of the Streisand effect. Very dumb move by them. I would never work for a company that sues whistle blowers like this.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#463Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's definitely NOT illegal in EU if the user is appropriately informed, usually in your employment contract you sign a clause about that. Even the government does it to their employees.
No, there have been all kinds cases of enforcement action in EU where the user was informed but the employer could not justify the violation of privacy; in general EU law and especially in privacy law it's quite frequent that some explicit "consent" clause in employment contracts (essentially, if it's a standard clause in all agreements and "take it or leave it") is treated as not representing true consent and void.…
What you're talking about has absolutely nothing to do with tracking usage of workplace computers and networks - H&M kept "excessive" (sic) records of personal data of people who were not their employees at all (family members of their employees) - and the problem wasn't that they had some data because in EU you're required to keep track of families of your employees due to tax reasons, but that they had too much of it.
In most EU countries, tracking company-owned hardware is explicitly okay, and where it's not mentioned in law there are judicates that make it OK.
As I said, even the government and its wholly/partially owned enterprises are doing it, and working as a contractor for the government here requires you to track usage of your employees' workplace computers too, so I can't see how it could be in any way illegal. Same thing with working for banks and insurance, and I bet there are more cases.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#464Why don't they make the whole process anonymous? After verifying that you work for a company, why don't they physically destroy everything that could be used to de-anonymize you, leaving with only some kind of public key and a proof of that you work for company X? For the legal part I think there were some countries (IIRC Sweden) that doesn't require to keep any logs so that they can move operations there with an own…
That's a technologist's typical reaction. However, this is not a technical problem. In reality, if Glassdoor did something like that it's just going to increase the likelyhood of getting targeted directly for libel. Even if someone actually worked for a company, it doesn't mean their statements about it are true. Someone might be disgruntled for a variety of reasons and slander the company, in which case it would be…
Counterpoint: I use a VPN for anonymity and/or for safety on public wifi. One of the key features of the VPN is they don't keep logs. I'm not personally doing anything illegal or immoral, but the last thing I would want is a VPN company having a log of all my internet activity.
Glassdoor's entire value proposition is anonymity. The best way to respond to a subpoena, IMO, is to make it very clear that they have no way to know. Of course that might mean more legal action directed directly against them, but to me that's a cost of doing business as there is no business if people stop trusting Glassdoor to protect their identity.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#465Earlier quoted context omitted.
NDAs are sometimes not in the public interest and should be violated in those cases.
NDAs have got nothing to do with public interest whatsoever. If you disagree with what the NDA covers, don't sign the NDA.
Sometimes NDAs purport to cover things that NDAs cannot legally cover.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#466Does Glassdoor actually have any business operations or webservers in NZ that would be subject to this order if it was issued from a court in NZ? Since when does a NZ order apply to a non NZ company. For example, American media regularly publishes the names of persons charged with crimes in Canada where the name may be banned from publication by a Canadian court. It's a first amendment thing. If US companies start ob…
Please stop with these inane "but can we get away with ignoring the law elsewhere????" comments - it pops up every single time a US corporation is held to account for laws in a country where it violated them and it never stops being tedious.
I'm sorry, no, US corporations and people should not be held accountable to every foreign country's arbitrary laws, unless you want to set a precedent of legal action against the webservers of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International for publishing information about the state of things in Xinjiang province or Uzbekistan freedom-of-press.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#467Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was hired via a consultancy firm (Ness Technologies) that would have me work in PayPal chennai office back in 2012. A new CEO came and basically reduced work force drastically, the worst mass layoffs I have ever seen. The environment then changed to worse rapidly etc. etc. I decided to quit the toxic environment. Contractually I was supposed to get 2 months of basic pay, but Ness and Paypal conspired together and c…
PayPal wouldn’t open themselves up to that risk. 100% the type of shit I see consultancies pull, especially smaller ones or regional ones. Any with HQ in US wouldn’t risk it. Unless the 2 contacts from each company had a personal vendetta against you. Then I can see it.
I think you're violating a couple HN guidelines here: assume good faith and "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#468Would a blockchain based Glassdoor alternative make sense? You can't sue a blockchain, and if they do somehow, they're not going to ban the entire blockchain in the whole country just because it provides anonymous reviews.
Why is the solution always “blockchain”. Blockchain doesn’t solve any real existing problem.
Assuming we ever come to a consensus on a master chain or two (ETH? BTC?), that shit is very valuable!
A decentralized historical record, of any kind or quality, is something of dreams...
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#469Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought a little about this. While onchain you cannot censor it, the “view” created for convenience on web2 could just ignore sufficiently flagged responses. This would still generally allow anonymity. Of course you could also have anonymity on a traditional platform by not requiring people to sign in with usernames but use a private key instead. So just use that part of web3 but no blockchain storage.
How will you prevent a company flagging unflattering reviews in an effort to get them hidden (companies will pop up offering these kind of services, employing multiple computers, botnets, etc.)?
How does Twitter?
Answer: they don't.
If it's a big enough problem, it's noticed and addressed.
Re: Glassdoor not so anonymous
#470Where is glassdor located? If it’s not in New Zealand, what are the consequences of giving them the middle finger and saying “No, we will not comply; feel free to block us in your insignificant country”?
Glassdoor Execs could be charged and convicted in NZ, insuring they never could set foot in the country without being arrested.
Not trying to sound pretentious... but it is just NZ, correct? Do they really matter in the grand scope of things like Free Speech?