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

301–310 of 317 posts

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

#301

Post by _jal »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #154
_jal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The demonization of unions is over the most successful cases of propaganda in the last century Ever notice how unions are somehow all the same entity, and seem to have to answer for things completely different unions in completely different industries did? Nobody treats corporations this way, even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some ind…

> Nobody treats corporations this way... Oh yes they do. "All corporations are evil exploitive money-grubbing polluting anti-democratic anti-worker..." I've seen it, here on HN, on the regular. I don't recall if I've seen it today , but I see it a lot. > ... even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some industries... The AFL-CIO looks (or at l…

> Oh yes they do

You can nutpick to find people saying anything, of course.

Show me someone in a position of power saying that. I think they closest you'll find is someone like AOC, who has gone nowhere near that.

> The AFL-CIO looks (or at least looked) like the same thing, but for unions.

The AFL-CIO has been in decline for several decades. If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in the 60s, you're just making my point for me.

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

#302

Post by yencabulator »

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…

It's more the delusion that you can casually maintain perfect opsec. People committing actual crimes regularly get caught by those slip-ups, of course you too will have slip-ups in your every day life.

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

#303

Post by AnimalMuppet »

_jal wrote: post #301
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody treats corporations this way... Oh yes they do. "All corporations are evil exploitive money-grubbing polluting anti-democratic anti-worker..." I've seen it, here on HN, on the regular. I don't recall if I've seen it today , but I see it a lot. > ... even though (if you look at interlocking BoD membership) there's a more reasonable case to be made for collusion in some industries... The AFL-CIO looks (or at l…

> Oh yes they do You can nutpick to find people saying anything, of course. Show me someone in a position of power saying that. I think they closest you'll find is someone like AOC, who has gone nowhere near that. > The AFL-CIO looks (or at least looked) like the same thing, but for unions. The AFL-CIO has been in decline for several decades. If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in…

> nutpick

I don't know whether that was a typo or deliberate, but it's beautiful. I'm stealing it.

Yes, you absolutely can find a nut who will say anything - even several nuts. Absolutely. But in this case, I think it's a bit stronger than that. I see it too often. It could be just a few loudmouths saying the same thing over and over, but to me it feels more like, say, 5% of HN users actually believe that. True, that's far less than the number who believe "all unions are evil", but it still seems to me to be enough people to be significant.

> If you want to tar, say, the Amazon efforts with things the AFL-CIO did in the 60s, you're just making my point for me.

Well, I didn't want to do that, so don't put that on me. All I wanted to say is that, as corporations can collude (or at least appear to), so can unions, and we have historical examples of it happening - and, unlike corporate collusion, happening formally and in the open.

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

#304

Post by mise_en_place »

jamiek88 wrote: post #58
mise_en_place wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The great thing about capitalism and the free market is that you can choose not to enter into an agreement with a party if they run contrary to your ethics and morals.

Yeah avoiding the only isp in my town ain’t happening. How the free market will I get internet?

Starlink

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

#305

Post by Karellen »

gtvwill wrote: post #79
Karellen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I literally set up these catch all employee tracking systems. Does that bother you at all? Not just about the employees you’re doing this to, but about being part of the system that normalises this kind of surveillance generally? Is this really the kind of world you want to live in?

Nope. Look from a private perspective and up until a few years ago even from a business perspective (i was very idealistic when i started out) I am linux/foss/privacy advocate through and through. But in the business realm, you have no privacy whilst your at work on work devices, the company owns that data not you. Want to send a message privately about something not work related. Fine, but use your own device. Man I…

> But in the business realm, you have no privacy whilst your at work on work devices,

Only because some people decided that should be so, and other people worked to ensure it happened. You state it like it's an immutable law of the universe, but it's a choice we collectively make, and a policy we enact. Or, a choice we passively allowed others to make for us, and a policy we allowed others to enact upon us.

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

#307

Post by mise_en_place »

tpmx wrote: post #133
mise_en_place wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah if you want to defraud people, sure. No auditing required. Who's being dishonest here and making false statements? (Can you see the irony???)

That's a false equivalency. You seem like you've never worked with honest people.

You have to be careful is all I’m saying, on both sides (as an investor or entrepreneur). Also, many times audit also means documenting your systems, reducing bus factor and decreasing time spent for new employees during onboarding.

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

#308

Post by parasubvert »

karaterobot wrote: post #239
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?

… And completely predictable and inevitable for 50 years, and written about endlessly since the mid 20th century. Short of a butlerian jihad level event, the only way to fight back is better countermeasures and better value.

The law won’t help (they want more surveillance). Democracy won’t help (most people want more surveillance on their neighbors). Exploit the system.

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

#309

Post by parasubvert »

technion wrote: post #204
parasubvert wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

News flash: there used to be entire departments of humans that did this (and in some companies there still are). Your corporate comms are monitored and there is no privacy.

This is the part that I don't get. 15 years ago I worked at a place where there was an entire room of people who were hired to literally do nothing but read your internal mail all day. One of the deployment rules were to make sure they had unimpeded access to everything (except for executives of course). Please don't misinterpret me as suggesting I like the practice. I can see why people are upset that this technolog…

Not to mention upwards of 75 years of science fiction literature that discussed the inevitability of this.

The only solution that I can see: Exploit the system….

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

#310

Post by parasubvert »

the_optimist wrote: post #213
parasubvert wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

sure, highest source of risk. What’s the risk that, say, the FBI director is going to run a borderline op where he selectively exfiltrates information to the press. Still an insider or no?

How bout when a president does it? At some point your power/value transcends the system in place.
Post reply on HN