Live data from Hacker News

Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

theregister.com

131–140 of 184 posts

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#131
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ... unless you're part of the insider-trading presidential Epstein Island elite pedo-class, you're also not safe from government overreach But how did that turn out for Ghislaine Maxwell though? We aren't seeing her much in the posh NYC parties anymore are we? And something also has to be said about public shame when sentences like: "Bill Gates got even more STDs than Windows got viruses and that lead to his wife q…

Ghislaine Maxwell is a woman. A fitting proxy for this whole situation, when you realize that she's the only person (so far) to have been put in jail over this whole "powerful men abusing women" situation.

>Ghislaine Maxwell is a woman.

OK, and so what if she's a woman? You think women can't be evil to commit heinous crimes or what? Evil doesn't do gender discrimination.

>she's the only person to have been put in jail over this whole "powerful men abusing women" situation.

Well she's was the one responsible for finding and pimping out underage girls to those "powerful men" meaning she's the one to get caught red handed and receive sentencing. Most of those "powerful men" on that island weren't caught red handed, they were just mentioned in the files in ambiguous terms, which isn't enough of strong evidence "beyond reasonable doubt" to slam dunk jail them on the spot like Maxwell.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#132
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

im using those as a proxy for the largest employers. If we think the people working in those companies are all bad people, that means most people full stop are bad people. If people are supposed to stop working at meta if they want to keep being a "good person" then they go work somewhere else. Can they work at any of the largest employers? can they be sure?

You keep diluting the arguments with sweeping generalizing statements and non-working analogies like "but think of people in other countries". When it's actually pretty easy: The people worked and kept working at Facebook after these huge and small issues - after Myanmar genocide - after paying teenagers to spy on them through VPN - after falsifying its ad metrics that ended up negatively affecting and outright destr…

Im aware of all of those things. I assume many more terrible things besides those happen internally. I think people directly involved with such decisions, or implementing such decisions, are responsible, and I condemn them. Obviously. I would even suggest that those with internal knowledge of such things before they happened are morally obligated to whistleblow them.

I think expecting everyone else (which is, I believe, almost everyone working at facebook) not involved with any of these things to take a large personal sacrifice or be condemned is unlikely to result in many resignations. You're asking people to be hurt for the actions of others.

The best argument you have here is the moment someone starts working at facebook, after these things happen. I don't know that they should be condemned, but I can understand looking at them with some suspicion. Still, its hard to say its the worst thing in the world to do, accept employment under a shitty person. Who hasn't complained about their boss?

When you lump in people who have done nothing wrong (and in fact you have no information about what they are or are not doing to stop things like this) for failing to stop the actions of others together with those committing acts of evil, you are making a totalizing statement. There is nothing they can do to redeem themselves. They are morally equivalent to the people doing the terrible things. Which is absurd.

To claim that my analogies to countries are "non-working" is ridiculous. This is the exact same argument as "are citizens of israel complicit in the actions of their government" or "are citizens of the usa" or "are citizens of palestine" or "are citizens of iran". If anything, I feel citizens of a country have far more potential to change the course of what those countries do than an employee at a company like facebook. (they still have almost no power at all, so the point is essentially moot. But at least democracies are outwardly meant to follow the will of their citizens, and coordination is encouraged) What power workers may have, only works when they coordinate action (which I think should be encouraged. These people are your friend).

We need more rational, sober judgement in the world, not mob justice.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#133
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was hiring anyone for a job over 75k usd I should know very well that they can produce with very few touch points. I would also expect my team to speak up if someone wasn't producing. I wouldn't care about hours worked because they are a salary employee. I would care that the team could contact them and they contributed meaningfully to projects.

So your thing is not achieving something, your business is about keeping people busy all day? Hopefully folks like you are leaving the workforce soon.

I think we misunderstood each other. Contributing to projects means achieving something. Obviously if it's sales the goals are different than if it's development. I care about company accomplishments and teams working together.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#134

I don't see what can be trained with that, but it would be a nightmare to be always recorded like that

Do people honestly believe their current employers aren’t monitoring them right now?

Every employment contract I’ve signed has included language that makes it clear that whatever I do on corporate time, on the corporate net, on corporate devices, is corporate property. This is why I never mix corp and personal data on my phone or join my phone to their WiFi.

Is it just the AI training angle that makes this newsworthy?

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#135
I was once asked to install surveillance software on my personal PC, as a remote freelance worker. The person responsible on Slack told me "let me know when you've installed it". So I decided to just wait 15 minutes and then say "yeah I installed it" to see if they would notice that I didn't... and they didn't, they just said "OK, thanks" and I never heard anything about it ever again.

I realize this doesn't really help this conversation but that's all I can think of whenever this kind of subject comes up.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surveillance for all

That would imply that Zuck is being surveilled.

The first photo I ever saw of a person covering their laptops camera with tape was a publicity photo of Zuck. Everyone I personally knew in the intelligence-adjacent industry had already been doing it. He was the first "civilian" I saw who did it intentionally.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#137

Man, I sure wonder if those engineers building Palantir's, Flock's, and other surveillance SW right now (hello if you're reading this), will have this 20/20 hindsight "oh shit" epiphany moment, when the product they helped build is gonna be used against them or their kids in the future. Kind of like when Dr. Frankenstein finds his end at the hands of his creation. Those SW devs probably think that doing a deal with t…

Mostly, the motivation of people making these products are doing so because they believe that if they don't do it, then the "bad guys" will keep winning: terrorists, burglars and whatever boogieman is the current "Public Enemy Number One".

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#138
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You keep diluting the arguments with sweeping generalizing statements and non-working analogies like "but think of people in other countries". When it's actually pretty easy: The people worked and kept working at Facebook after these huge and small issues - after Myanmar genocide - after paying teenagers to spy on them through VPN - after falsifying its ad metrics that ended up negatively affecting and outright destr…

Im aware of all of those things. I assume many more terrible things besides those happen internally. I think people directly involved with such decisions, or implementing such decisions, are responsible, and I condemn them. Obviously. I would even suggest that those with internal knowledge of such things before they happened are morally obligated to whistleblow them. I think expecting everyone else (which is, I belie…

> I think expecting everyone else (which is, I believe, almost everyone working at facebook) not involved with any of these things to take a large personal sacrifice or be condemned is unlikely to result in many resignations.

Ah yes. All those horrible things happened overnight, right? So that's why we don't expect people to take a large personal sacrifice of ... knowing about this shit for years, and still working for the company. Or knowing about all this shit, and still choosing to work for this company.

> When you lump in people who have done nothing wrong (and in fact you have no information about what they are or are not doing to stop things like this) for failing to stop the actions

Never once did I ask them to stop the actions of others. However, they chose to work for a company which is complicit in all of this.

> This is the exact same argument as "are citizens of israel complicit in the actions of their government"

You keep pretending that being born in a country is exactly the same as actively choosing to work, and keep working for a company especially when there are plenty of other options. "But where else will I find a 300k salary" is not a moral choice.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#139

I was once asked to install surveillance software on my personal PC, as a remote freelance worker. The person responsible on Slack told me "let me know when you've installed it". So I decided to just wait 15 minutes and then say "yeah I installed it" to see if they would notice that I didn't... and they didn't, they just said "OK, thanks" and I never heard anything about it ever again. I realize this doesn't really h…

Makes sense. The dude probably didn't care about the software. He was just trying to check an item off of his task list for the day.

Re: Irony as Meta staff unhappy about running surveillance software on work PCs

#140
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> since their users are free to not look at them It's even worse when you consider that even if you were to opt out of Meta services entirely (which is not practical due to how many essential things run on e.g. whatsapp), they still build a shadow profile on you based only on data other people upload about you. So yeah, not only "just don't use it" is not a reasonable argument, it doesn't even solve anything!

> which is not practical due to how many essential things run on e.g. whatsapp Where do you live that WhatsApp is essential? I deleted my account when Facebook bought it and I don’t feel like anything of value was lost. Between messages/sms, signal, telegram, discord, I have no shortage of places to chat. WhatsApp only has value because of the network effect. Quit the platform and make your contacts find you elsewher…

> Where do you live that WhatsApp is essential?

In Brazil, for example, without WhatsApp you are an outcast of modern society there, businesses communicate with customers on WhatsApp, whole families and friend groups only use WhatsApp.

> WhatsApp only has value because of the network effect. Quit the platform and make your contacts find you elsewhere. Every platform dies eventually. The users just need to leave.

The network effect is exactly what makes it really hard for any single user to decide "I'm leaving" and tell every single person they need to be in touch to contact on another platform they don't use. What you are suggesting is simply impossible on an individual level, the only way it happens is if the platform has major issues that bleed users because it isn't working or the platform is made inaccessible by the government. Even a better competitor appearing will have a very hard time to crack the market share of a established network exactly due to network effects.

Post reply on HN