Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 312 posts

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#231

Post by maaanu »

_curious_ wrote: post #225
Fargren wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"JUST QUIT" makes it sound like quitting is an easy thing to do. "like they have a gun to their head" makes it sound like direct physical threat is the only mechanism of coercion that exists. These things are just not true. For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the…

"For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive." With all of that said: whose responsibility is it to avoid this ty…

Yes, the government is responsible because it violates basic human rights. At least in germany this kind of behavior is forbidden.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#232

Post by WalterBright »

pdonis wrote: post #210
WalterBright wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is another aspect to this. Many employees need guidance here and there. A manager told me once that he'd often find his team members working on something that wasn't the critical path, and he'd have to nudge them back on it. Every day. Team members may also be working inefficiently, and the manager observing it can help with that, too. It's not always an adversarial thing.

> Many employees need guidance here and there. This is best done by regular check-ins, not by monitoring everything an employee does every single minute.

Seeing what someone is doing is different from hearing a description of it. For example, someone may be using the wrong tool for the job. Or he may be using an ineffective sales pitch. Or he may be doing his job by going around the horn rather than using the canal.

I'm not saying it's never abusive. Just that it isn't necessarily abusive.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#233

Post by panda-giddiness »

_curious_ wrote: post #120

It's up to individuals as employees to decide if they want to subject themselves to this (agreed repulsive) treatment...what's with all these comments and sentiment in this thread acting like they have a gun to their head? JUST QUIT already if uncomfortable with whatever a given job entails should that include perceived invasive measures ie - surveillance.

Presumably these invasive measures were instituted after the pandemic. Employees didn't agree to these measures when they accepted their jobs, so of course they have a right to be upset with their employers now. If these measures are unpopular, we shouldn't blame employees for being upset; instead, blame the employers for dictating those unpopular policies.

Employees have little bargaining power here. While quitting is hypothetically an option (albeit realistically not necessarily), so is shaming. And I see nothing wrong with shaming companies for their stupid, dehumanizing initiatives.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#234

Post by cosmodisk »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #224
poulsbohemian wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>My employer is still getting my eight hours, possibly more, just diffused through the whole day. Even that sticks in my craw... we need to make this 8 hour bar die. Some days I'm just not productive. Other days I might be heads-down on a problem for 15+ hours straight. So long as I'm accountable to my work and it is producing the results we've mutually agreed upon, this hour nonsense (for workers not billing by the…

My favorite is trying to figure out a bug and nothing I can think of provides any clue. So I do some other work for a bit and go home. And the next morning sit down down and fix the problem in 2 minutes. Obviously _something_ got done between last night and this morning. But how would you bill for THAT. Or an old example from a mentor. Get in the shower, start thinking about what you're going to work on today. Realiz…

Last year we had a management meeting and somehow started talking about smoking. Someone suggested we should ban people from smoking because they are wasting company's time.I defended the smokers arguing these are usually much needed breaks for those on the phones. Then I went on explaining that I could literally sit outside the office all day and just talk to my colleague and smoke one after another and It will be a productive day for us.They were taken back for a bit by such arguments,but then I explained that we get paid for using our brains and if it takes 5 hours to sit outside and think how to do it and then jump back on the keyboard and write code in 2 hours that implements this idea,then that's what it is. Everyone agreed and we moved on from the topic:)

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#235

Post by 0xffff2 »

wolco wrote: post #209
_curious_ wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Point to a single person who cannot quit their job right now?

The one supporting a family. The one who has bills. Someone who likes to eat. Do you live at home still?

>Do you live at home still?

That's a curious question. Don't most people live "at home"? I'm guessing you mean "do you live with your parents still". Do most people consider their parent's house(s) "home" even after they move out? I sure don't.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#236

Post by _curious_ »

evilolive wrote: post #204
_curious_ wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"... A lot of people have few prospects of employment - especially right now - and have bills to pay." Have you considered that you may be engaging with and replying to someone who falls into this category? What makes you think I am or speaking from the POV of an engineer who has employers fawning over them? Beyond that though - why do you think that people do not have the ability to exercise their own choice in the…

So is it the case? Do you have very few prospects of employments and yet would willingly chose living in poverty over surveillance of your laptop? I don't think it's as unlikely as you seem to believe. There are no stats being brought forward on either side, so I don't see how your scenario is less or more likely than mine. And I am merely trying to empathize with the people for whom this is the sad reality.

I'm not convinced whatsoever that this surveil or starve ultimatum you have made up represents anyone's reality in the first place...let alone those examples in this article.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#238

Post by _curious_ »

panda-giddiness wrote: post #233
_curious_ wrote: post #120

It's up to individuals as employees to decide if they want to subject themselves to this (agreed repulsive) treatment...what's with all these comments and sentiment in this thread acting like they have a gun to their head? JUST QUIT already if uncomfortable with whatever a given job entails should that include perceived invasive measures ie - surveillance.

Presumably these invasive measures were instituted after the pandemic. Employees didn't agree to these measures when they accepted their jobs, so of course they have a right to be upset with their employers now. If these measures are unpopular, we shouldn't blame employees for being upset; instead, blame the employers for dictating those unpopular policies. Employees have little bargaining power here. While quitting…

"Employees have little bargaining power here."

They hold all the power, actually, unless you are one who does not believe in the power of self-agency because perhaps you've already relinquished yours?

"While quitting is hypothetically an option (albeit realistically not necessarily), so is shaming. And I see nothing wrong with shaming companies for their stupid, dehumanizing initiatives."

Hey, me either, what kind of management culture even does this!?

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#239

Post by evilolive »

_curious_ wrote: post #236
evilolive wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is it the case? Do you have very few prospects of employments and yet would willingly chose living in poverty over surveillance of your laptop? I don't think it's as unlikely as you seem to believe. There are no stats being brought forward on either side, so I don't see how your scenario is less or more likely than mine. And I am merely trying to empathize with the people for whom this is the sad reality.

I'm not convinced whatsoever that this surveil or starve ultimatum you have made up represents anyone's reality in the first place...let alone those examples in this article.

It's beyond your imagination to conceive that there are people who would have to accept something they loathe because they must feed their family and pay the mortgage in a very immediate future?

I'm totally open to changing my mind that this hypothetical person doesn't exist in the US, if you'd like to bring forward a peer reviewed study on the subject.

Re: Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance

#240

Post by crispyambulance »

whydoyoucare wrote: post #174
HumblyTossed wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you have access to Admin and can see ALL processes running, then no. Well, I guess you could try and analyze all data leaving your computer... but is it worth it? If you're working from home, just use a different computer for non-work stuffs.

In my experience, there is no way you can tell -- even if you are an Admin -- not unless you are highly skilled and technically competent and possess detailed knowledge and understanding of computer and program behavior.

OK, but many folks have a fair amount of control over their work PC's. For instance, they can install software manage services, etc.

This "surveillance-ware", I am suggesting, can be thought of as a kind-of malware and be detectable in some way, either on the disk or as a running process.

I am surprised that no one has created something to check if such surveillance software is running or perhaps even actively screenshotting.

Post reply on HN