371–380 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In most cases wouldn't that session info be tied to physical hardware to which the employee no longer has access? Sure, tick all of your boxes, but I would think that losing the company laptop/phone/VPN would be a pretty significant barrier to maintaining access to other systems.
Not with BYOD
Love this bit: "Incidentally, if someone gets mad about you running this sort of thing, you probably don't want to work there anyway. On the other hand, if you're able to build such tools without IT or similar getting "threatened" by it, then you might be somewhere that actually enjoys creating interesting and useful stuff. Treasure such places. They don't tend to last."
> Incidentally, if someone gets mad about you running this sort of thing, you probably don't want to work there anyway. If you do want to work there, though, maybe check the legal situation first... I am almost certain, this counts as unauthorized processing of personal information. Just because you have access doesn't mean it's fair game to do whatever you like with it. Especially archiving, keeping a history or lin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Incidentally, if someone gets mad about you running this sort of thing, you probably don't want to work there anyway. If you do want to work there, though, maybe check the legal situation first... I am almost certain, this counts as unauthorized processing of personal information. Just because you have access doesn't mean it's fair game to do whatever you like with it. Especially archiving, keeping a history or lin…
A diff of the directory is abuse? That seems overly aggressive and I don’t see what that prevents.
[LIVE]->[DIFF_N]->[DIFF_N-1]->...->[DIFF_1]=[LIVE_1]
You know, that's kinda how Git works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Incidentally, if someone gets mad about you running this sort of thing, you probably don't want to work there anyway. If you do want to work there, though, maybe check the legal situation first... I am almost certain, this counts as unauthorized processing of personal information. Just because you have access doesn't mean it's fair game to do whatever you like with it. Especially archiving, keeping a history or lin…
A diff of the directory is abuse? That seems overly aggressive and I don’t see what that prevents.
Yes, if it contains employment information. A bunch of diffs can cross the threshold into event sourcing and if you have enough of them you might end up with a copy of the directory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between jobs is the only time you touch LinkedIn, lest HR sees some activity on your profile and buckets you into a "actively job-searching" risk group.
> lest HR sees some activity on your profile and buckets you into a "actively job-searching" risk group well.... yes? HR considering you "at risk" is a pretty good thing :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because private messages carry an expectation of privacy. They're different parts of speech from the same root word, after all.
The only expectation of this is in your head. It is a fantasy that doesn't exist.
The word "private" means "having privacy" in the normal, everyday sense. Using that word to describe something that isn't private is lying. You and I both know there do exist many people who suffered consequences for not understanding the definition of that word.
In my opinion, the ethical thing to do is to use a different word when no expectation of privacy applies. And the upside is powerful: transparency gains trust.
Slack did this well: they call them "direct messages".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A diff of the directory is abuse? That seems overly aggressive and I don’t see what that prevents.
> A diff of the directory is abuse? Yes, if it contains employment information. A bunch of diffs can cross the threshold into event sourcing and if you have enough of them you might end up with a copy of the directory.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A diff of the directory is abuse? Yes, if it contains employment information. A bunch of diffs can cross the threshold into event sourcing and if you have enough of them you might end up with a copy of the directory.
I already have a copy of the entire source code for this application, including all of the secret database logins. Why would having a copy of the employee directory be a bigger problem? (To be clear: I'm trying to understand the issue, not dismiss it)
In jurisdictions where people have the right to be forgotten, they could ask for all their information to be erased. How would that work if you keep a copy of the employee directory? That is one example.
Another example would be a proposed bill in my jurisdiction which will force employers to disclose all information it stores about employees at the request of any employee. This will make you (someone who has a copy of the employee directory) some sort of data processor, which comes with new requirements about how you store that data and for how long.
As someone else said somewhere in this thread, if you can see information, this does not automatically mean that you can store it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why did you make epithaps? Any interesting organizational or technical challenges you encountered on the way?
Initially it was a combination of just for the fun of it (it's a small script, as OP described). Secondarily there was the feeling of "everyone is going to go work at [major competitor]" and I was curious whether I could collect the data to show it. (I never ended up looking into this, but maybe HR did.) As a dumb script it was not designed to be especially flexible. One thing I remember needing to fix was that by it…