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

Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

pupuweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 317 posts

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#111

Post by Rapzid »

mc32 wrote: post #96
kelseyfrog wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Because there is a group who struggles to reconcile what looks like a contradiction - another group who appears to advocate for policies which harm themselves. The quote and its derivatives attempt to explain this apparent contradiction.

Not P, but I agree. One does not have to like a billionaire or even dream about being one to disagree with disproportionate taxation out of other principles or concerns.

It goes the other way around too. There are billionaires in favor of increased taxes on billionaires.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#112

Post by gautamdivgi »

This seems to be office 365 implementing monitoring of official communications of employees & contractors for the office account? I don’t think it extends to a personal office 365 account, at least it didn’t seem to.

Why is this exactly newsworthy? Any communication through official channels is the property of the employer anyway. To collude, leave & other stuff use personal channels maybe.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#113

Post by 21723 »

daenz wrote: post #68
jmyeet wrote: post #32

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems…

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

> I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

Obviously cappies (meaning people who support capitalism, who are not necessarily actual capitalists--most aren't) don't walk around believing they personally have a greater than 50% chance of being billionaires. It's hyperbole. That said, they do overestimate their future earning potential while severely underestimating the number of ways in which preexisting social class will block them. This is evidently true; behavior and preferences reveal beliefs, and no one supports capitalism and its extreme inequities unless they harbor a belief--perhaps an underexamined and irrational one--that they'll one day be invited to join the capitalist class, since there's literally nothing to justify the system but "It's good if you're one of them."

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#115

Post by djmips »

daenz wrote: post #68
jmyeet wrote: post #32

The only way this sort of thing changes is with labor organization ie unionization. The government won’t save you from efforts like this. The government represents the interests of the capital owning class. The demonization of unions is one of the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It’s gone so far s people who will die on the hill of Jeff Bezos paying slightly more taxes because everyone seems…

>think they’ll be Jeff Bezos one day. I see that phrase thrown around a lot. It's a variant of "you're never going to be a billionaire (so you shouldn't be against X)." Why do people assume that you have to think you'll be a billionaire to be against something that would affect billionaires negatively? Is something only wrong if you think you'll find yourself in that position one day?

My anecdata is that I've literally heard people say that. For example - 'I don't want the rich to be taxed because I might be rich someday.' They don't specifically even mean Jeff Bezos or even a billionaire but assume that 'when' they are rich they will want the tax advantages.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#117

Post by throwaway0a5e »

qbasic_forever wrote: post #52
throwaway0a5e wrote: post #9

I have zero confidence that this system is smart enough to differentiate between all these things and the legitimate variants thereof (e.g. collusion and cross team collaboration are basically indistinguishable) that companies actually want people doing or discussing and likely outnumber the bad by orders of magnitude.

Yeah and the sad thing is companies that don't know better will flip it on because "wow look at smart Microsoft's latest feature, we better use this!" and then inadvertently fire Sally in HR because her asking people to sign a card for the VP's birthday looked suspiciously like a violation of corporate gift policies.

People in HR don't get fired for that kind of stuff. They have a thin line to protect them.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#118

Post by zmmmmm »

gtvwill wrote: post #79
Karellen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I literally set up these catch all employee tracking systems. Does that bother you at all? Not just about the employees you’re doing this to, but about being part of the system that normalises this kind of surveillance generally? Is this really the kind of world you want to live in?

Nope. Look from a private perspective and up until a few years ago even from a business perspective (i was very idealistic when i started out) I am linux/foss/privacy advocate through and through. But in the business realm, you have no privacy whilst your at work on work devices, the company owns that data not you. Want to send a message privately about something not work related. Fine, but use your own device. Man I…

> But in the business realm, you have no privacy whilst your at work on work devices, the company owns that data not you

This is really the problem in a nutshell.

Would you let the company install cameras in the bathroom to film you using the toilet? I am guessing probably not.

So why do you think you "have no privacy whilst at work". This is a fiction. Privacy is a human right if you're at work or not.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#119

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

paranoidrobot wrote: post #102
lucisferre wrote: post #59

It's ok it's from Microsoft. Nothing in Office 365 works, this won't either.

I'm sure this is intended as a joke. Even if it doesn't work right - having it at all is going to result in all sorts of bullshit for employees where this is enabled. Someone digging through your emails because you happened to mention some vaguely related keywords... yeah, no.

Normal operation of AI often involves exhilaration of data to the vendor, so I take the privacy qualifiers with a grain of salt. This most likely is turning your email inbox into something roughly as (non)private as a search engine query. It's the ultimate dark pattern, goodness knows what MS intends to do with this access.

Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

#120

Post by outworlder »

gautamdivgi wrote: post #112

This seems to be office 365 implementing monitoring of official communications of employees & contractors for the office account? I don’t think it extends to a personal office 365 account, at least it didn’t seem to. Why is this exactly newsworthy? Any communication through official channels is the property of the employer anyway. To collude, leave & other stuff use personal channels maybe.

Except it's an AI making decisions and flagging people who may then be the recipient of adverse actions.
Post reply on HN