Employees will just start colluding using external tools once the first few suckers get fired.
You’ll then just get fired for using the external tools.
Unless you’re too valuable for them to care.
Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
181–190 of 317 posts
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#182I 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…
> It's extremely troubling that given all this corporate authoritarian AI tech they built that Microsoft is still trying to be the voice of reason about the dangers of AI.
Just speculating, but this phenomenon could either be explained by 1.) diverse internal opinion; the parts of Microsoft responsible for warning against AI are not the same parts pushing authorarian AI software, or 2.) Moat-building/ladder-pulling; Microsoft is warning people of the danger of _other people's_ AI, but of course you can trust _their_ AI, because they're the ones warning you after all!
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#183Submitted title was "Office 365 implementing AI to detect employees colluding, leaving and more". That broke the site guidelines: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The proper place to include that sort of interpretation is by adding it in a comment in the thread. Then your interpretation is on a level playing…
OK, I will so in future.
I tried to summarize the article in the title. Will follow the guidelines from now on.
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#184This 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.
if the entirety of your being is the property of your employeer during "clock time" that don't seem like employemnt to me
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#185Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
1) Nonsense. If you don't trust other people's code, you're screwed. You put yourself into the position where you have to audit your OS code, your CPU code, code of every driver that runs in your system. None of which you did.
2) Isn't WebRTC open source too?
3) Their code, their decisions.
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#186I 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.
I’m sorry, what?
Have you never worked for a bank or financial company? Never had to take a drug test for your programming job?
US Federal law and the Hundreds of billions of dollars spent on audit, insider trading, cyber security, ex filtration tools STRONGLY point to a corporate culture that is obsessed with defending against internal threats, because that’s the highest source of risk.
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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?
Yeah it's not necessarily true. I think Innuendo Studios/Ian Danskin explains this mechanism very very well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agzNANfNlTs Many people think Jeff Bezos should exist and have his wealth because he got there by playing the game better than everyone else, and that this game is just the way things are. He earned it. Attempts to change the game will just make everything worse and people won't…
I watched the whole thing. I think he gets a few critical points wrong, for example, the idea that the economy is a zero sum game (9:10), and someone can only have more if everyone else has less. I could make the whole "increasing the size of the pie" argument, but I'm sure you've heard it.
With this premise, the author doesn't even identify the argument that while members of the hierarchy have relative positions, the wealth creation resulting from the hierarchy ensures everyone's absolute position increases. A side effect of this is how a country can have poor people who are wealthier than other countries middle classes.
Destroying that hierarchy without a design to replace that progress mechanism means everyone's absolute position would not continue to move primarily up. If conservativism was just "a hierarchy where everyone stays in their absolute positions, but they may move around relatively sometimes," it would be a lot less appealing. The whole point is that it is the most effective driver of overall progress.
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#188Submitted title was "Office 365 implementing AI to detect employees colluding, leaving and more". That broke the site guidelines: " Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize. " - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html The proper place to include that sort of interpretation is by adding it in a comment in the thread. Then your interpretation is on a level playing…
I know it's policy to use original titles, but the editorialization in this case hardly seems sensational. Just look at the linked roadmap tickets: * https://www.microsoft.com/en-my/microsoft-365/roadmap?filter... * https://www.microsoft.com/en-my/microsoft-365/roadmap?filter... * https://www.microsoft.com/en-my/microsoft-365/roadmap?filter... * https://www.microsoft.com/en-my/microsoft-365/roadmap?filter... * https:…
If you want to make an overarching statement via the post title, the route is to write up your thoughts on the matter, title your post however you want, and then post that.
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#189I 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.
I think it's that you can be considered effectively guilty (there's grounds to fire you or take disciplinary action against you) for tripping an ML routine without further evidence or proof, and that it seems more important to have "clean" corporate communication rather than actually act in good faith (as long as bad stuff happens on off channels, no one cares).
Hopefully it doesn't make it outside of the corporate world though.
Re: Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)
#190Has this been reported to EFF?