Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Purview: Additional classifiers for Communication Compliance (preview)

pupuweb.com

251–260 of 317 posts

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

#251
Part of what makes stuff like this surprising is expectations of privacy. Like for example. If you start a video chat on Hangouts or Zoom, even or maybe especially on a work account, you don’t expect that meeting to be recorded or analyzed surreptitiously. I think in many places, it would be illegal.

Because of this, one might feel like the same standard applies to other one-on-one and small group communication avenues, but it’s actually completely the opposite.

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

#252
post #108
post #77

I've always had a preference against working with microsoft products but this is getting to the point where I'd find a new gig instead of being subjected to this stuff.

I think at least some my staff will likely resign because mandatory deep inspection / network monitoring is being forced onto everyone's computers by the IT department. It's probably the only way to stop it from happening at the moment. Unfortunately the buzzword of "zero trust" has been bent towards meaning "spy on everything your employees do".

Ah, another happy Zscaler customer!

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

#253

How, for the love of god, do you defend Microsoft after this?

B-but they write VS Code! They were supposed to have changed!

That's two strikes against them now.

(I kid, VS Code is great for many, but it's not my cup of tea).

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

#254
post #161
post #68

Earlier 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?

A lot of people will quote John Steinbeck [1]: > “John Steinbeck once said that socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to back this up. The 2000 election is a good example although I can't find a good quote for this. Gore famously daemonized the "top 1%". An illuminatin…

The "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" phrase was used by John Steinbeck to describe not the poor, but what we might call today "champagne socialists":

"Except for the field organizers of strikes, who were pretty tough monkeys and devoted, most of the so-called Communists I met were middle-class, middle-aged people playing a game of dreams. I remember a woman in easy circumstances saying to another even more affluent: 'After the revolution even we will have more, won't we, dear?' Then there was another lover of proletarians who used to raise hell with Sunday picknickers on her property. I guess the trouble was that we didn't have any self-admitted proletarians. Everyone was a temporarily embarrassed capitalist. Maybe the Communists so closely questioned by the investigation committees were a danger to America, but the ones I knew — at least they claimed to be Communists — couldn't have disrupted a Sunday-school picnic. Besides they were too busy fighting among themselves." (source: https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Steinbeck)

Ronald Wright somehow turned this into a quip about Gramscian false consciousness, in the great global game of telephone we're all playing with each others' words.

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

#255

Anyone else miss Office 97? You just installed it locally off a disc and it just worked when you needed it. You didn’t even need internet.

Not really. Office suites were a mistake. Return to text editor.

Except for one: Ashton-Tate Framework. "Emacs for business" gets you within a stone's throw of how flexible and powerful Framework was back in the day. Of course its UI wouldn't fly in today's world, but back then (early 80s) it was a revelation.

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

#257

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…

Why do people persist in using work emails for personal things like job interviews?

I think it's just another unfortunate manifestation of the phenomenon that Big Tech loves to exploit --- that people seem to care very little about privacy in general, or perhaps have been guided gently in the direction of doing so by those who stand to profit the most strongly from it.

In your specific example, there could be a slightly more positive reason --- proof that you do actually have a job at where you claim to be working.

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

#259

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?

I’d have no problems with it. If they were going to fire me over that, it’s their loss. And it’s not generally in Microsoft’s culture these days to be that petty.

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

#260

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?

Was Microsoft employee. Did not worry one bit about talking to a recruiter on LinkedIn. Your immediate management is unable to see or even get that data. You would have to trip an alarm elsewhere, trigger a major investigation, get legal sign-off and then maybe Microsoft would ask LinkedIn to pull that data. Even though MS owns LinkedIn, they are treated as a separate business entity. LinkedIn has its own security team etc.

Even MS's own recruiters will use LinkedIn to contact current MS employees for internal positions.

Tech is a double sided coin. Things like this have the power to be abused, even easily at times, but that doesn't mean they always will be.

Post reply on HN