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

221–230 of 317 posts

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

#221

Post by dijit »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #212
dijit wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are extremely unconvincing and rather shallow refutations. I expect more of people on this forum honestly. Taking the core of your argument: "Trust". The point of E2EE is that we don't trust the network. We put all the trust in the client, something we control. Or at the very least we seperate our concerns. (please refer to this lovely interactive "Tor" diagram by the EFF for what I mean by splitting out concer…

> These are extremely unconvincing and rather shallow refutations. That's not a refutation of my counterarguments at all. It just shows you're frustrated and talked yourself into a corner. We both know you don't audit your OS code, your drivers code, your hardware. All of them can be leaking your secret messages. > Extremely dismissive, almost to the point of insulting. Another non-refutation, another frustration, be…

Oh dear, you definitely chose the wrong person to accuse of not auditing their code.

I'm typing this from my OpenBSD laptop, which, I assure you, I have audited extensively; but that's hardly relevant to this topic.. I just think it's funny that you would assume this of me. I'm also big on system-transparency[0] and micro systems like Oasis Linux[1] which attempt to limit things being able to hide.

Granted, nothing is perfectly secure.

But, again, besides the point entirely.

Your central thesis is that nothing is safe.

Why, then, should I not just use telegram? Or VK, or WeChat?

We have consensus in the HN community that those chat systems (especially telegram) are inherently insecure. Why?

Don't worry, I'll answer for you: Because they do not support E2EE except when specifically asked to, and because they used their own encryption.

This is enough for the security community to decide that Telegram is a bad product(tm).

I'm not arguing in defense of telegram, I'm just letting you know what happens to "secure messengers" under a microscope.

The same criticism has not been levied to Signal, despite them offering no more protection in real terms than HTTPS would. There are theoretical safety-nets but nothing you can concretely audit.

Your argument that "it's their code they can do what they like" holds as much water as an inverted plate, given the context that they've chosen to live under.

So, instead of attempting to talk me down with and Argument from fallacy[2] perhaps you can talk about this point.

[0]: https://www.system-transparency.org/

[1]: https://github.com/oasislinux/oasis

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

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

#222

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

ajmurmann wrote: post #214
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would anyone have personal conversations on a platform which is linked to your work?

Because you might be friendly with coworkers and not always switch platform as the topic transitions.

> not always switch platform as the topic transitions

My point is, you totally should. I am friendly with my coworkers too, if I want to have a non "work-friendly" talk with them, we talk in the kitchen or at the pub. It baffles me that people would use a work provided form of communication and _not_ assume it's auditable in some way.

edit: should clarify that my work is probably more calm than most and would probably not GAF about it regardless.. but it's just good opsec. Never write something down you wouldn't be comfortable having read out to you if it can be traced back to you.

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

#223

Post by bombcar »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #143
zmmmmm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

accuracy isn't a strict requirement though if you accidentally fire 10% of good people you still have 90% of them left, and if that lets you fire 80% of the staff that are committing thought-crime it's probably a win.

Even if it works out as you say, the chilling effect on who's left will be very real.

That already exists in general - this is why CEOs get surrounded by yesmen.

We already filter out people who aren’t smart enough to keep their mouth shut when necessary.

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

#224

Post by bombcar »

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…

I’m sure automatic transcripts of all calls is just a few developments away - it’d be desirable for call centers and I suspect it’ll be available to all eventually.

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

#226

Post by elromulous »

copperx wrote: post #109
elromulous wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Older office didn't have the god awful ribbon.

In my view, the ribbon was an incredible UX innovation; I just resent Microsoft for patenting it. A ribbon could improve so much software. Don't forget that cascading menus are an antipattern. What's not to like? Common functions are one click away, and others are two clicks away. Are you saying lengthy drop-down menus were better? I don't see how.

I haven't used office in a while, but I remember that once a function wasn't in the "home" ribbon, finding it required searching through the other sections. And the division of those sections was super counterintuitive for me. Whereas I could usually hazard a pretty good guess where something would be in the drop-downs.

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

#227

Post by ajmurmann »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #222
ajmurmann wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you might be friendly with coworkers and not always switch platform as the topic transitions.

> not always switch platform as the topic transitions My point is, you totally should. I am friendly with my coworkers too, if I want to have a non "work-friendly" talk with them, we talk in the kitchen or at the pub. It baffles me that people would use a work provided form of communication and _not_ assume it's auditable in some way. edit: should clarify that my work is probably more calm than most and would probabl…

Your original question was about "personal conversations". I don't think all personal conversations fall into the category of things I wouldn't write down. If I remember that I need to ask my coworker about dietary restrictions for going out together on the weekend while we are talking about our db problems, I won't necessarily switch to Signal for that.

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

#228

Post by m-p-3 »

gigel82 wrote: post #14
m-p-3 wrote: post #6

Next step will be to detect potential attempt at unionizing.

They have "workplace collusion" as a category, and even more dystopian shit, like: EDIT: apparently these 2 are just jokes, sorry for not checking my sources! `Negative emotions: Expressions of sadness, unhappiness, discontent, anger, rage, anguish, or existential ennui, as these may negatively affect team cohesion. Joy: Language suggesting hopefulness, optimism, anticipation of a brighter future, faith in humankind…

After social credit score, you'll have your corporate score too.

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

#229

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

ajmurmann wrote: post #227
dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not always switch platform as the topic transitions My point is, you totally should. I am friendly with my coworkers too, if I want to have a non "work-friendly" talk with them, we talk in the kitchen or at the pub. It baffles me that people would use a work provided form of communication and _not_ assume it's auditable in some way. edit: should clarify that my work is probably more calm than most and would probabl…

Your original question was about "personal conversations". I don't think all personal conversations fall into the category of things I wouldn't write down. If I remember that I need to ask my coworker about dietary restrictions for going out together on the weekend while we are talking about our db problems, I won't necessarily switch to Signal for that.

Then we misunderstood each other. In that case there is no need to change platforms at all -- no one is ever going to penalize you for talking about dietary restrictions or similar topics. If you want to talk about looking for jobs, how much you hate your wife, or what an asshole your boss is, that should obviously not be done in a way that it could ever be traced to you. Failing to do that makes the situation at least half your fault, what did you expect?

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

#230

Post by wardedVibe »

dj_mc_merlin wrote: post #222
ajmurmann wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you might be friendly with coworkers and not always switch platform as the topic transitions.

> not always switch platform as the topic transitions My point is, you totally should. I am friendly with my coworkers too, if I want to have a non "work-friendly" talk with them, we talk in the kitchen or at the pub. It baffles me that people would use a work provided form of communication and _not_ assume it's auditable in some way. edit: should clarify that my work is probably more calm than most and would probabl…

They also built tools to detect when you're doing that
Post reply on HN