Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

pupuweb.com

161–170 of 317 posts

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

#161
post #68
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?

A lot of people will quote John Steinbeck [1]:

> “John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”

There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to back this up. The 2000 election is a good example although I can't find a good quote for this. Gore famously daemonized the "top 1%". An illuminating poll in 2000 revealed that 19% of Americans thought they were the "top 1%" and another 20% thought they would be someday. So 39% of the population thought of themselves as the "top 1%".

Americans also love the slippery slope fallacy. The idea, that you allude to, is that people will defend Jeff Bezos's taxes being raised because the next step is apparently them coming for the working class.

This too is propaganda. B does not necessarily follow from A. But political leaders and plutocrats are happy to use this argument to their own benefit. It's the sort of argument people make when they have no argument.

It's a byproduct of American exceptionalism [2].

[1]: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/328134-john-steinbeck-once-...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_exceptionalism

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

#162
post #24

I'm already not wanting to have personal conversations on teams. My tech savvy colleagues and the ones who can be convinced are on signal, where we talk about job offers and relationships. A few others do Instagram, and get to see my art photography. And occasionally I'll bump into someone when we're both in the office and be able to say whatever not looked over by AI. There's a real chilling effect on getting to kno…

Signal and WhatsApp aren't 100% trust worthy though. Why not pick something you can host yourself?

Signal is open source. What's not trust worthy exactly?

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

#163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Thin Company Line

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

#164
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal and WhatsApp aren't 100% trust worthy though. Why not pick something you can host yourself?

Right, I'm tired of this. E2EE doesn't mean anything if you have the same entity controlling the server as is controlling the endpoints. If you control both ends of an E2EE communication and they are closed then you gain nothing over normal TLS encryption, you still trust the authority. (Whatsapp is obviously closed and yes, signal can be considered effectively closed as their client is not reliably or reproducably b…

And we have cross platform signal style E2EE now in the form of OMEMO for XMPP. It's just that no one wants to use it.

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

#165

I get the 1984 vibe this has. How should companies defend themselves from insider threats?

This is no way to defend against inside threats. Any real threats will use other means of communication. Meanwhile this is just treating everybody as if they can't be trusted.

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

#166
post #45

I think if you have an E5 license there is already thoughtcrime functionality built-in. I remember someone demoing this to me in a Teams user group, and no one seemed to think it was creepy at all. In addition to flagging keywords it also used AI to detect undesirable thoughts and emotions, under the guise of anti-harassment and compliance. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the feature but I think it might b…

Emails aren’t thoughtcrimes. This is nonsense.

Everything in corporate email has always been subject to read by others, there is no expectation of privacy.

As we’ve seen from countless court cases, they range from boring nothingburgers, to evidence of actual crimes.

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

#167
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal and WhatsApp aren't 100% trust worthy though. Why not pick something you can host yourself?

Right, I'm tired of this. E2EE doesn't mean anything if you have the same entity controlling the server as is controlling the endpoints. If you control both ends of an E2EE communication and they are closed then you gain nothing over normal TLS encryption, you still trust the authority. (Whatsapp is obviously closed and yes, signal can be considered effectively closed as their client is not reliably or reproducably b…

I don't really know who you're arguing against, because I'm with you on the points you address. Why I care that its open is so that when they eventually pull a Microsoft, or Facebook style anti-consumer move, we can fork off and continue on how we see fit. It's about control of our communication.

Using signal is the same as using WhatsApp. Eventually Facebook will buy it.

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

#168

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.

News flash: there used to be entire departments of humans that did this (and in some companies there still are).

Your corporate comms are monitored and there is no privacy.

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

#169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Signal and WhatsApp aren't 100% trust worthy though. Why not pick something you can host yourself?

Signal is open source. What's not trust worthy exactly?

1) You need to audit that code, which.. everyone will have to do on both sides of the communication channel.

2) https://signal.org/blog/reproducible-android/

> the Signal Android codebase includes some native shared libraries that we employ for voice calls (WebRTC, etc). At the time this native code was added, there was no Gradle NDK support yet, so the shared libraries aren’t compiled with the project build.

A good answer in my opinion, but it does mean that what you install from the play store is not reproducible and thus can never really be confirmed to be the same as public sources. There are also binary blobs needed for interacting with Google Play.

3) Signal is openly hostile to third party client implementations: https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37 Meaning they have a near monopoly on all signal communications through their client.. and since it's not reproducible, I hope everyone is building from source.

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

#170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The demonization of unions is over the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century. It is possible to see unions as both the source of some and solution to other forms of abuse.

Why are you saying this? It's what every single corporate pamphlet and forced talk says. No one is saying unions will bring everyone enlightenment and cure cancer. What people are saying is workers need a say in how the workplace is run and companies spending millions convincing folk otherwise should be forced to stop.

Few people are able to view unions objectively instead of picking a side, a union comes with tradeoffs not universal goods or evils. There are plenty of examples of unions fixing things and plenty examples of them making things worse, your opinion of a union shouldn't be based on keeping score but actually looking at the risks and rewards. Unless an organization is particularly nice, unions make a lot of sense for low skill, high turnover jobs in large corporations; unless a organization is particularly bad, unions don't make sense in high skill professional positions.
Post reply on HN