171–180 of 561 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There shouldn't be any expectation of privacy? There absolutely should!
On a work computer? No there shouldn't and isn't.
This is going to be a huge chilling factor for employees. You’d no longer be able to disent, or discuss anything non-work related with even the slightest expectation of privacy. Yes they could have accessed logs before but there’s a difference between directed checking after incidents and active surveillance at scale.
> You’d no longer be able to disent, or discuss anything non-work related with even the slightest expectation of privacy. When I joined the workforce a long time ago, I went in with the mindset that: Their property, their equipment, their right to monitor (or even keylog). I was pleasantly surprised to find that not to be the case, but I've always believed in their right to do so. Why do people expect to have a right…
Either way when it comes to ranting about the company: many workplaces don't have a watercooler where all your team mates congregate (e.g. remote/different offices). Also what, you'll rant about confidential work projects over non-work texts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. What do you reckon would have happened if you'd hired them anyway?
What? Hiring is a contract between employer (company entity) and employee. No individual "you" can hire anybody except through the company's official process. If HR says "no we won't extend an offer," a lowly HM extending an offer would be clear-cut fraud.
In the USA this is mostly theoretical since HR could immediately fire the employee due to at-will employment.
But in Canada, it's a much bigger issue due to labour protections.
e.g. Many managers at American multinationals gave assurances over email to employees about work-from-home arrangements. Then the company does a huge RTO push.
When the employee refuses, HR discovers they can't fire the employee without a hefty buyout.
Best not to give assurances if you're managing a multinational team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> employee communications are already monitored everywhere proof? > Turns out people actually don't really care about privacy at work lol, won't ask for proof, because it's trivially falsifiable
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Consider, do they ever go on explicit websites on that computer? No? Because they know that's surveiled while a personal computer for the same purpose is not. As I said, people do know the difference and might do light personal things like googling something unrelated to work but wouldn't do e.g. banking on a work computer. If they do, well, it'll be their fault if they ever get fired for doing so. The fact that you…
Most companies just don't have a reason to look through the computer they're letting you use to do your job. Don't give them a reason. Maximizing shareholder value by observing you doing job in the pursuit of replacing you with a very small shell script is a great reason that they've just discovered. Get your own laptop, pay for your own cellphone, use your own internet service, etc. If you create anything of value o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? Hiring is a contract between employer (company entity) and employee. No individual "you" can hire anybody except through the company's official process. If HR says "no we won't extend an offer," a lowly HM extending an offer would be clear-cut fraud.
Managers usually have the authority to bind the company to an employment contract. Even if they don't, the rule of "apparent authority" often means the employee can still sue. In the USA this is mostly theoretical since HR could immediately fire the employee due to at-will employment. But in Canada, it's a much bigger issue due to labour protections. e.g. Many managers at American multinationals gave assurances over…
Is that an American thing? I've been a manager for years and never heard of that happening. I didn't even know how much the people I managed were paid.
This is going to be a huge chilling factor for employees. You’d no longer be able to disent, or discuss anything non-work related with even the slightest expectation of privacy. Yes they could have accessed logs before but there’s a difference between directed checking after incidents and active surveillance at scale.
> You’d no longer be able to disent, or discuss anything non-work related with even the slightest expectation of privacy. When I joined the workforce a long time ago, I went in with the mindset that: Their property, their equipment, their right to monitor (or even keylog). I was pleasantly surprised to find that not to be the case, but I've always believed in their right to do so. Why do people expect to have a right…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the work machine is the company's property and there shouldn't be any expectation of privacy. A bogus argument, methinks. Consider that the company also owns the phones, but can or do they listen to every phone call ?
Yes? And by law so can all US phone companies.
https://www.fbi.gov/video-repository/think-before-you-post-p...
https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/fbi-can-neither-confir...
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/10/2/headlines/trump_direc...
https://www.levernews.com/are-you-on-the-fbis-new-watch-list...
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2025-12-11/justice-de...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I insulted him in my mandatory Exit Interview form from HR when I resigned. It had no impact of recruiters trying to win me back since then.
Until the day when Zuckerberg meets you, and his Ray Ban glasses profile your face and pull up that comment on your exit interview as pertinent information. His eyes glaze over and he just reads that instead in his corner vision instead of listening to you, and you get snubbed forever more