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

231–240 of 317 posts

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

#231

Post by crummy »

dijit wrote: post #159
fartcannon wrote: post #125

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…

We're talking in the context about employers reading the plaintext of messages you send, right? Is Signal the same as Teams in this regard?

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

#232

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jmyeet wrote: post #176
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was agreeing with that point, with my comment about "default allowed".

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

#233

Post by dj_mc_merlin »

wardedVibe wrote: post #230
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…

They also built tools to detect when you're doing that

Unless they're recording my conversation at the pub I do not see how (very illegal where I live, I'm hoping illegal everywhere). Care to link an example?

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

#234

Post by wordnerd2022 »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #144
wordnerd2022 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s pretty paternalistic to think that you’re a better judge of what is good or bad for someone than that person themselves. There are plenty of people who are anti union because they’ve rationally concluded they would be worse off.

I'm genuinely curious to read what your edit would have been so that it didn't appear that I was putting myself into one of these groups.

Sorry, I probably shouldn’t have used “you.” I meant generally… “people who make this argument”

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

#235

Post by indrora »

peterfield wrote: post #78

"The leavers classifier detects messages that explicitly express intent to leave the organization, which is an early signal that may put the organization at risk of malicious or inadvertent data exfiltration upon departure". In other words "how to promote and encourage paranoid behaviors from employers" :(

Have you seen high schools in the US?

Once I discovered that every school-issued machine had a VNC server running on it I assumed that the contents of my screen were being recorded at every moment. Turns out I was half right, as I caught up with the IT guy afterwards and the principal (a paranoid sociopath who shouldn't be anywhere near kids) wanted the ability to catch kids when she thought they were looking at non-school related things.

It's fundamental safety in a society with these sorts of companies to assume: company infra = logged until you die. Once your company has come under a subpoena for information or under some kind of long term discovery, you write emails under the assumption they're going to be in court for everyone and your mother to see.

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

#237

Post by mc32 »

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.

There is a difference between an investigation under subpoena for example and

An automated process that alerts whomever is chosen as overseers to all possible missteps and misdeeds.

One is a very targeted and conscious effort the other is automated and pervasive everywhere all the time.

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

#239

Post by karaterobot »

parasubvert wrote: post #177

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 jo…

> 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 comment implies this isn't potentially an enormous difference. The difference is between having to pay people to spy on their coworkers, and having computers that do it passively, invisibly, continuously, in real time?

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

#240

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

parasubvert wrote: post #177

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 jo…

> 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.

On a related note, if you were a Microsoft employee, how comfortable would you be talking with recruiters on LinkedIn?

Post reply on HN