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

311–317 of 317 posts

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

#311

Post by prepend »

bombcar wrote: post #299
prepend wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember during the Ashley Madison leaks there were so many work emails. I wouldn’t even use work email for buying a movie ticket much less organizing dates and affairs. Some people are weird like that. There’s also old people who only have work emails. Lots of different people in the world.

Arguably if you're having an affair it's something to keep from your private email but your work email may not be as visible to a spouse ...

I guess that’s the reasoning, but sending it to work seems pretty dumb compared to creating a separate, cheater account.

Although sending it to work is probably the most secure from a spouse.

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

#312

Post by cheinyeanlim »

There are good and bad for those feature. The only rule of thumb: Never perform non-working related matter in workplace or facility provided by company, no matter how good your performance in company or how good your relationship with superior.

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

#314

Post by Rapzid »

mc32 wrote: post #192
Rapzid wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It goes the other way around too. There are billionaires in favor of increased taxes on billionaires.

And the IRS allows you to contribute as much as you prefer to the treasury. It's voluntary and no one is compelling you. So that group of billionaires who think the government can use their money more efficiently than they can in order to advance American society are absolutely free to do so! Go them! They don't need the government to compel them. They can form their own Philgubernatorial group -set their own donatio…

How do you know that don't? Really though, they shouldn't. That's pissing in the ocean on an individual level, and the government doesn't run it's budget off rando Treasury donations. They are not just advocating more taxes on themselves but on the very wealthy in general. A systemic change in taxation.

These same people likely also donate a huge amount of money to charities and etc. On an individual basis it's easier to draw a line between funds donated and outcomes.

> They don't need the government to compel them.

Do they? Do you? Why not just make the government a charity then.

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

#315

Post by Rapzid »

daenz wrote: post #196
mc32 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the IRS allows you to contribute as much as you prefer to the treasury. It's voluntary and no one is compelling you. So that group of billionaires who think the government can use their money more efficiently than they can in order to advance American society are absolutely free to do so! Go them! They don't need the government to compel them. They can form their own Philgubernatorial group -set their own donatio…

I've never understood this either. It's like they only want it to happen if its forced on everyone, which is the opposite of the social altruism that they are claiming to advocate for.

I mean, that's the great thing about the rule of law right? That we agree to do stuff together that we might not individually?

> It's like they only want it to happen if its forced on everyone

Well if we take a law to mean "forced on everyone" that's really the definition of "it to happen".

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

#316

Post by greyhair »

That link was not happy about my pihole swallowing their ad links, so I could not read it.

I will say, however, that I don't use my personal phone to host any employer apps. It is my phone, not theirs. I pay the service fee.

So conversations I have on my phone are mine. My coworkers all operate the same way.

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

#317

Post by greyhair »

indymike wrote: post #156
librarianscott wrote: post #2

So, now we can't use Teams to have the "water-cooler" moments that supervisors claim we need, but really we are having them on Signal or IOS and they just can't measure that. Organizations really, really, really hate transparency.

Nah. People like to talk and not get fires for saying the wrong keyword.

This made me laugh. Back in the late 1970s, there was suspicion that the Soviet Union a had completely tapped the AT&T phone network on the East coast. I cannot remember the author of the article, but they stated that every American having any telephone call with anyone on the East coast should toss in a number of different key words to overwhelm the ability of the USSR to gather any useful intelligence, because they would be overwhelmed by data. Then they gave a list of keywords. I wish I had saved it. So my brother and I, when we called each other, would toss in the occasional 'enriched uranium' 'satellite imagery' 'battalion' 'missile test' 'weapons research' and other nonsense into our conversation.

I don't know what I found funnier, the idea that some poor fool at a Soviet embassy had to listen to our conversation because a key word hit caused the recording to be saved, or the idea that the author even proposed that the idea would work.

Post reply on HN