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

WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

privacyinternational.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 367 posts

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#341

Post by lelanthran »

Jochim wrote: post #337
lelanthran wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> UBI would, and should, replace current welfare schemes. It can't. There still needs to be a safety net for people who don't use their UBI to buy food or shelter. And then you're back where we are now - some sort of safety net for people who don't have food or shelter.

That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, and as a group, they're often not able to access current programs due to mental health issues or lack of knowledge. Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, and reduces the "othering" of people who depend on the support the most.

> That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs,

That's still a non-zero need for the administration and overhead of a welfare system.

> Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses,

How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist?

By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today.

By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now.

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#342

Post by hiatus »

hef19898 wrote: post #340
mantas wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it a human right to be fed & sheltered by others? Without giving anything in return? What about human rights of those at the other side of a stick? Is it a human right to demand something from another human being? Is it a human right to have to provide to someone?

Yes. Articles 22 and 25 in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Either you are trolling, trying to pass as a ultra-tough meritocrate or you just don't care about other people. Maybe all of the above. Edit: All edge and no point sums up your comment, and the GP, pretty well, I guess.

Not who you responded to but, who died and made the UN king? Are they the final say in the determination of human rights? There are countries that are not members of the UN, do these human rights apply to people in those countries? If so, by what authority? If another group of countries forms a group and makes a declaration of human rights that is the antithesis of this one, does it have the same merit?

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#343

Post by josefx »

oneplane wrote: post #56
2devnull wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people don’t want to work. They’ve told me so. I think UBI would destroy these people, like easy wealth does to the newly rich. A better solution is to focus on worker’s rights and labor regulations. Of course that opens the internationalism question, but so too would ubi.

What leads you to believe that people who do not want to work are desirable to have in the workplace? UBI also doesn't give you wealth, it gives you basics, and overal that's much cheaper than dragging down an entire team or department. At the same time, we currently have plenty of people who do not want to work and do indeed not work, that will not change regardless of what you implement. I also think that happy and…

> What leads you to believe that people who do not want to work are desirable to have in the workplace?

Many of them are still better than having nobody and if they have to work to get money they are also somewhat incentivized to at least do the bare minimum.

Counterpoint: Some management handbooks consider both unmotivated and motivated workers problematic. Would you rather deal with a highly motivated moron or a substantially less motivated Einstein?

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#344

Post by hef19898 »

hiatus wrote: post #342
hef19898 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Articles 22 and 25 in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Either you are trolling, trying to pass as a ultra-tough meritocrate or you just don't care about other people. Maybe all of the above. Edit: All edge and no point sums up your comment, and the GP, pretty well, I guess.

Not who you responded to but, who died and made the UN king? Are they the final say in the determination of human rights? There are countries that are not members of the UN, do these human rights apply to people in those countries? If so, by what authority? If another group of countries forms a group and makes a declaration of human rights that is the antithesis of this one, does it have the same merit?

I love people just asking "questions", the laziest version of dark rethoric there is. What's next, define human, define right?

But ok, I'll bite. Nobody made the UN king, the UN so contains a vast majority of nations. As stated, those rights are universal, and apply to everyone, including you. Since th UN signed of, basically every nation did as well. That a lot are not respecting them is a different story, but doesn't neuter those rights.

Also, those rights, one way or the other and to various degrees, are already enshrined in western democratic constititions (I don't whether or those sets of law are actually called that).

And no, human rights are not defined by a majority vote. Otherwise we would have the human right to be held as slave, to be lynched because of skin color, sexual orientation or religion, imprisoned because of your political opinion without trial and a whole lot of other nasty things.

Currently, the UN isbthe hoghest, most universal body tondefine such things we have. If sometjing better comes along, fine. For the UN to be born, we needed WW2 and millions of murdered civilians. That answers your question of who died, childreny, the elderly across fronts and beligerent nations all over the world. And the same kind of people continue to die because they don not have those rights everyone in the free democracies takes for granted.

And let's not be dicks by denying our fellow human beings the most basic freedoms and human dignity. Argueing for that isn't edgy, it is pathetic and only shows incredible levels of priviledge.

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#345

Post by Jochim »

lelanthran wrote: post #341
Jochim wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, and as a group, they're often not able to access current programs due to mental health issues or lack of knowledge. Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, and reduces the "othering" of people who depend on the support the most.

> That's a much smaller proportion of people than are served by welfare programs, That's still a non-zero need for the administration and overhead of a welfare system. > Some initiatives still need to exist but UBI obviates the need for the majority of them, simplifies the administration, removes bureaucratic expenses, How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist? By definition alone, the exis…

> How does it remove anything if the other systems still need to exist?

Most of the other systems don't need to exist. Those that do are narrower in scope and can better serve a much smaller group of people.

> By definition alone, the existing systems still need to exist, only without the economies of scale that they have today.

Means tested welfare systems have almost no economies of scale. Every case needs an assessor and the more people you deal with the more assessors you need. The alternative is to reduce the quality of the assessment. Even worse, the assessment process is often contracted out. So now the program pays wages to a fleet of assessors and also to shareholders.

> By the way, I don't think UBI obviates the need for a "majority" of them. It obviates the need for one welfare payment system. The others still need to exist to serve whoever they are serving now.

In the UK, off the top of my head, it would entirely replace: unemployment benefits, housing benefits, child tax benefits, disability benefits, working tax credits, EMA, and childcare payments.

The main difference to many of the people who are "served" by the current system is that they'll actually receive the benefits they're entitled to, without having to know how to apply, and roll the dice on a minimally trained assessor with a financial incentive to say no.

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#346

Post by hiatus »

hef19898 wrote: post #344
hiatus wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not who you responded to but, who died and made the UN king? Are they the final say in the determination of human rights? There are countries that are not members of the UN, do these human rights apply to people in those countries? If so, by what authority? If another group of countries forms a group and makes a declaration of human rights that is the antithesis of this one, does it have the same merit?

I love people just asking "questions", the laziest version of dark rethoric there is. What's next, define human, define right? But ok, I'll bite. Nobody made the UN king, the UN so contains a vast majority of nations. As stated, those rights are universal, and apply to everyone, including you. Since th UN signed of, basically every nation did as well. That a lot are not respecting them is a different story, but doesn…

The point of my line of questioning was not to be edgy, it was to illustrate the utterly ephemeral nature of "human rights". These rights are not carved in stone anywhere, and even in places where they are "enshrined in western democratic constitutions" they are not applied universally and are eroded still. There is nothing stopping a powerful and large enough group from redefining these rights.

Even your own examples illustrate the fragility of these rights.

> And no, human rights are not defined by a majority vote. Otherwise we would have the human right to be held as slave, to be lynched because of skin color, sexual orientation or religion, imprisoned because of your political opinion without trial and a whole lot of other nasty things.

Surely human rights _are_ defined by majority vote, given that not all humans had the right to be free in relatively recent history in the US. What force would these human rights have if they were defined by the Sri Lankan government and held by no other?

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#347

Post by hef19898 »

hiatus wrote: post #346
hef19898 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love people just asking "questions", the laziest version of dark rethoric there is. What's next, define human, define right? But ok, I'll bite. Nobody made the UN king, the UN so contains a vast majority of nations. As stated, those rights are universal, and apply to everyone, including you. Since th UN signed of, basically every nation did as well. That a lot are not respecting them is a different story, but doesn…

The point of my line of questioning was not to be edgy, it was to illustrate the utterly ephemeral nature of "human rights". These rights are not carved in stone anywhere, and even in places where they are "enshrined in western democratic constitutions" they are not applied universally and are eroded still. There is nothing stopping a powerful and large enough group from redefining these rights. Even your own example…

So, are you in favor of the UN version of human rights or not? Or human rights, as they are commonly understood (you know this whole freedom, safety, security, privacy and not be surpressed and abused stuff), in general?

Hell, I feel like I'm trapped in an interview with Jordan Peterson or Ben Shapiro...

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#348

Post by dsaavy »

threatofrain wrote: post #2

Always request a separate laptop and phone for work, and always create a separate set of accounts.

I run a small consultancy and from employee one we've always purchased devices for our employees to work from. No excuse for a company not to do this.

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#349

Post by account42 »

geraldwhen wrote: post #240
moooo99 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the assumption is most will then choose to work and earn extra income on top of that. Also important to stress that most (limited) experiments suggest this assumption to bee true. UBI is not as radical as many people pretend it is. It is essentially a one size fits all solution replacing all existing welfare programs with, in many cases, better outcomes.

You can’t quit when you’re in an experiment that will end. Unless payments are for life, the experiments of UBI are invalid.

So what's your argument? That we shouldn't try UBI because we can't for sure how it will work out until we do?

Guess what: That's true for pretty much everything. That doesn't mean discounting the evidence we do have because it's just that, evidence, is a reasonable thing to do.

Re: WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveillance creep (2022)

#350

Post by wizofaus »

tomcam wrote: post #168
eropple wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those with the most to lose benefit the most from having a just and civil society, but that realization never seems to percolate through.

A just and civil society being one where the harder I work, the more taxes I pay? Where stores are closing right and left because theft isn’t prosecuted but I have to pay $7,000 to get a bathroom permitted while an RV on the street outside my house is considered a home and gets to dump shit on the street with no repercussions?

Again, nothing to do with whether UBI is fair. I accept progressive income taxation isn't fair and in fact I'd rather we did look for better ways to structure how tax is collected. An ideal economy wouldn't tax income at all - why discourage people from earning money? And if a UBI could do better job of reducing extreme and destabilizing levels of inequality, we could probably do away with income tax, and tax things there's a reason to discourage instead.
Post reply on HN