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

Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 180 posts

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#111

Post by aa-jv »

hajhatten wrote: post #108
aa-jv wrote: post #107

I recently had a manager insist that I install some MDM-like software on my laptop so that it could be tracked and managed remotely. I said, "okay I'll do that, but then I'm never going to put that laptop on my home network, or use it on any network I may frequent outside of the office, so I'll just leave my laptop on my work desk instead". The point, of course, is the same reasoning behind IT policies that don't let…

I simply uninstalled ours. IT couldn't understand why. Very thankful I have an understanding manager.

IT should never be treated as more senior to Development, imho. Sure, IT guy, you can put that software on there - but I reserve the right to Ghidra it into dysfunction.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#112

Post by giraffe_lady »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #48
BlargMcLarg wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catching acts of domestic violence would be a reason. To prevent he said/she said instances. NB: I don't agree with the increasing paranoia, it's just devil's advocate.

The most common reasons I've encountered: - people put rooms up on Airbnb and are (perhaps understandably) paranoid about things being stolen. It goes too far if there are cameras in bedrooms though. - people want to monitor their kids - general monitoring to catch anyone who breaks in while they are out etc. Have personally never heard of putting cameras inside for catching domestic violence: I suspect that abusers…

Abusers are far far more likely to use cameras against their victims than they are to allow a camera that could be used against them. Technology-enabled surveillance is already a major part of a contemporary domestic abuser's toolkit, this is not even theoretical.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#113

Post by marcosdumay »

BlargMcLarg wrote: post #17
emptyparadise wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow that's the last thing anyone ever wants to try.

Even better is the hypocrisy. "We value your autonomy! We know studies say happy, autonomous workers perform better!" Proceeds to stifle autonomy by invading your privacy in whatever way is legal or difficult to prove illegal.

So... Making clear the goal isn't performance.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#114

Post by mschuster91 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #100
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'd be in favor of classifying them as terrorists Same with Antifa. Some protestors are basically just mindless hooligans and their protests and property damage are harming the small business and working class people a lot more than the politicians and the ruling class. Like during the protests in France I kept seeing many mid-range Renault/Peugeot/Citroens on fire on the streets of Paris. Chances are those were mos…

The problem is that violence gets attention and sometimes conciliatory action like nothing else. Riots and terrorism generate world headlines, while peaceful picketing rarely gets anywhere near the attention (unless it's also met by violence, as the nonviolent demonstrations and sit-ins were during the Civil Rights struggles in the 60's). I am a pacifist myself, and am completely against violence, but I can see why s…

> The problem is that violence gets attention and sometimes conciliatory action like nothing else.

The thing is, the government itself is violent at its core:

- cops beating up peaceful protesters or executing people on the streets

- cops evicting people from their homes because they can't keep up with rent

- cops arresting women because of miscarriages (over 1.200 in 15 years per [1]!) and soon because they dared to abort an unwanted pregnancy

- social security systems, especially unemployment insurance, are purposefully laced with endless hoops to be jumped through, all in the name of denying as many people as possible access to these while still being able to claim that "we have a system for poor people"

"Peaceful resistance" against this level of violence is a pipe dream. The insistence on "peaceful" resistance, the complete lack of material consequences for offenders acting as part of the government is the reason why civil rights are under attack by the government as harsh as they are at the moment.

I'm not a friend of violence myself, but I absolutely refuse to look down on people for deciding to go the militant path in the face of the violence that governments are committing against the common citizen every day.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59214544

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#116

Post by SethMurphy »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #109
SethMurphy wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Security I live in a leased ground level floor through apartment with three entrances not including 6 accessible windows. In order to cover an entrance from inside some of the living space would need to be included. To fully cover I would need 5 cameras and have them in bedrooms too. Exterior cameras could help, but I have no authority to install. While I have no specific reason to worry, I wouldn't want my landlo…

None of these seem actionable to me. What are you trying to prevent that a camera would stop? If the basement is visibly flooding then it is flooded . If someone is on camera entering your home then they are in it . What are you going to do about it at that point that you wouldn't be able to do about it the next morning or whatever? Insurance doesn't require camera footage and realistically the most likely outcome of…

Yes, some may be un-actionable, but there are actions I could take on others (e.g. flooding is not equal to flooded in my situation). Whether they are worth it is still not clear to me. As my kids a getting older it is not so important to monitor them without special circumstances. I do fail to see where wealth has anything to do with this though.

Edit: Moved edit to reply that was not an option before.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#117

Post by lamontcg »

aa-jv wrote: post #107

I recently had a manager insist that I install some MDM-like software on my laptop so that it could be tracked and managed remotely. I said, "okay I'll do that, but then I'm never going to put that laptop on my home network, or use it on any network I may frequent outside of the office, so I'll just leave my laptop on my work desk instead". The point, of course, is the same reasoning behind IT policies that don't let…

They forced that kind of software on my laptop, so I bought a personal laptop that I used from then on (I did open source work so barely ever needed to use something internal like a VPN) and then I quit.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#118

Post by raxxorraxor »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #67
blueflow wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re G20: The people making the mess were young activists, the article even mentions their group affiliation by name. They are not the working class, they are a nuisance to the working class. I'd be in favor of classifying them as terrorists.

>I'd be in favor of classifying them as terrorists Same with Antifa. Some protestors are basically just mindless hooligans and their protests and property damage are harming the small business and working class people a lot more than the politicians and the ruling class. Like during the protests in France I kept seeing many mid-range Renault/Peugeot/Citroens on fire on the streets of Paris. Chances are those were mos…

In Germany at least Antifa aren't terrorists. Actual hooligans are much more destructive by several magnitudes.

State intelligence often tries to frame them as terrorists but they break fewer laws than the state itself. Also by several magnitudes.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#119

Post by lumost »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #71
raxxorraxor wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> efficiency encouragers That is quite the title. Imagine if they would just work and you actually had someone to help you. A whole new universe of productivity.

I genuinely shiver when I read language like this despite being very much a corporate child. I count my blessings that, at least until now, even when I was tracked, my boss either cared about results or 'metrics' were good enough or the boss liked me. I am not entirely certain how to prepare a child for this world. Short of running your own company, it will be hard to avoid the beast.

I suspect double speak will be elevated to a new artform. a large corporation has no standard basis by which t judge output. Managers may love your work, but it's hard to objectively quantify whether they have the right calibration.

Software that automatically says “you should push how harder”, “john is harming morale”, “jane is overworking”. Will be too tempting for a detached senior leadership to resist.

At my firm, laptops seem to have mysteriously gotten slower recently, chrome now regularly crashes on moderately sized documents. I would be surprised if it's not spyware related.

I'm moving over to a Linux machine as soon as I can, that way I can benefit from lack of software support.

Re: Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office

#120

Post by noelsusman »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #63
thematrixturtle wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you see "celebrating" in the article? Over half of it is devoted to worker pushback against surveillance and criticism of the technology itself, including whether it even works.

The latter third of the article is devoted to push-back. Nonetheless, as all writers understand, bias can be subtle [1] Let's start with the title. "Welcome to the era of the hyper-surveilled office" Does that not lend at least tacit assent by ambivalence, if not outright assent? Welcome? The next 750 words are given over to normalising the "lot's of valid reasons" to surveil workers, and lending value to an emerging…

That title clearly has a negative tone. Nobody reads that title and has a positive reaction.
Post reply on HN