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

171–180 of 317 posts

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

#171

Post by GauntletWizard »

parasubvert wrote: post #166
4oo4 wrote: 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.

Right, and this functionality is to punish you for nothingburgers as much as actual crimes. "Leaver" detection is something that is entirely sane for corporations to do but will be abused by the usual suspects in HR to instill fear and to retribute.

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

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?

[deleted]

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

#174

Post by dijit »

fartcannon wrote: post #167
dijit wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm agreeing with you and I'm frustrated that you got downvoted.

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

#175

Post by rl3 »

alliao wrote: post #140
rl3 wrote: post #107

Seems to only apply to messages, for now. My understanding is that unless a call on Teams is explicitly recorded, there's no capability for the organization to monitor the content within. Is this still accurate? Are there any features in the pipeline planning to change this? Microsoft offering "communications compliance" within the same product is certainly chilling enough as it is. The reality where people lose thei…

given how well voice recognition work nowadays it's really a matter of cost of implementation rather than if?

Not even. Transcription functionality already works for explicitly-recorded meetings in Teams. I'm sure their cloud resource costs to run it are negligible, too. A change in privacy stance is all that's required.

Pissing people off does incur a cost, though. Perhaps you're right.

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

#176

Post by jmyeet »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #146
simoom22 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize that historically labor unions predated government laws about labor unions, right?

Sure, before labor unions existed, there were no laws about labor unions - why would there be? But there were laws allowing freedom of association, so something like unions were default allowed, in the absence of any other laws.

You're missing the point of the comment you're replying to: labor organization does not require government permission to exist. It existed long before any sort of government quasi-protection.

There are many examples of this including Solidarity [1] and the Peasants' Revolt of 1381 [2] following attempts to freeze wages following the Black Death where demand suddenly exceeded supply and pushed up wages.

And this isn't even counting the cases where peasant and worker uprisings that led to revolutions.

The concept of a general strike is a relatively modern one but an extremely powerful one regardless of any legalities.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt

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

#177

Post by parasubvert »

This is nothing new: corporations have scanned instant messages, emails and even recorded phone calls for decades, and will fire you based on that evidence for violations of corporate policy. And will sue you or call the cops if they detect potential crimes.

I’m kind of surprised so many people are shocked by this. I know of one company where dozens of people were fired because their email was scanned for external job interviews and the CIO had a report, which he used to prematurely cut staff when he needed to save budget.

The only difference now is that the tech is smarter and cheaper so that you don’t need to pay as many people to spy on their coworkers.

Your defence against this is to find a job where you’re too valuable for them to do anything. As with any jurisdiction where there is at will employment.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by fartcannon »

dijit wrote: post #174
fartcannon wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm agreeing with you and I'm frustrated that you got downvoted.

Ah I see. Well thank you for your concern. I'm pretty used to it by now. :)

Its weird how much people fight against their own interests though eh.

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

#180

Post by bsedlm »

narrator wrote: post #43

It seems maybe not the intent, but the practical result is to use the private sector to implement CCP like social credit scores isn't it? By doing everything in the private sector they get around all those pesky constitutional protections.

so the rights and freedoms are only protecting citizens from government oppression... if a private company does it, then it's fine cuz corporations are also free people.

they're free people who somehow are getting to oppress and censor individual humans (otherwise the corporation is who is being oppressed), but let's pretend that we can punish them by "taking our dollars elsewhere" such that it's our own fault

IMO, tracing this towards the root, I find along the way the grand system of royalties and other kinds of rent schemes. Nobody cares cuz we prefer the promise (for the majority is a promise) that we can come up with something great to make it BIG and then get to live from rent or other kinds of royalty payments

Post reply on HN