71–80 of 145 posts
So for those of us who don't have a Facebook account and refuse to create one, this means our employer can force us to sign up?
Doesn't look like you have to have personal account or link it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, third parties may want your data, and the solution is throw in the towel and just give the data pre-emptively to third parties? Gotcha.
No. Illegitimate third parties, such as criminals, want your data. So you throw in the towel and give your data to legitimate third party companies that you have signed privacy and service contracts with. They're really not comparable.
So for those of us who don't have a Facebook account and refuse to create one, this means our employer can force us to sign up?
Edit: Worth pointing out that it's not really a Facebook account in the typical sense. You can have an FB@Work account without having an FB account, though it seems you can also use your FB account for both.
Awesome, pretty soon companies wont have to store any of "their" data on their own servers. Facebook - Company info/announcements/chat OneDrive/Google/Dropbox - Company documents VOIP Services - Company communications All stored in clear-text obviously (or at least not encrypted by company using the service before transfer to said services, same thing really). I myself think this trend is hilariously ridiculous, but…
Isn't Facebook already Facebook for Work? I'm sanitizing my internet presence for employment reasons and their moderation kills anything approaching NSWF so facebook can be wide open on work desktops. They're not naming any of their hot new collaboration tools, so they're just ripping off google docs then?
In this case, it's a walled-off Facebook about work. You can use all Facebook's tools to communicate with your coworkers about things you're doing at work, without making it public.
I wonder what it would take to get a passable OSS substitute to Facebook going in this space. You could host it on your own server(s) the same way you can host your own internal wiki that looks/feels just like Wikipedia. Why don't we have this already?
Something like FB-Groups for organizations of all kind fell out as a byproduct of our startup and we are toying with the idea of trying to sell that part in isolation. Basically you get your own, hosted / self-hosted FB-Groups, plus a bit more flexibility regarding permissions and group management. For example you could introduce someone external into a sub-topic in one of your groups, without exposing him to the rest of the group (not sure if that is possible with FB groups).
[Edit: Grammar]
This is going to destroy Slack
Picture it this way:
1. You show up to work, and Facebook is now mandatory.
It's attached to your real name, and Facebook
helpfully connects your real profile to all your
co-workers.
2. You now have to delete ALL of your non-work contacts,
for fear of gossip contamination, and NEVER use
Facebook outside of work again.
3. Everyone who has Facebook at work, now needs something
to fill the gaping void of recreational social media.
4. A new upstart fills the void, and Facebook crumbles and
implodes.I wonder what guarantees on data confidentiality will be offered? Facebook doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to privacy. I do not believe any serious workplace will trust them with handling any company data and IP.
Or weird trivialities like a dozen people asking me if I've fixed my TPS report headers yet, or the office printer is reporting "PC Load Letter" and no one can remember the new IT ticketing system procedure so I'm posting it here instead.
I don't think it would be the communications platform of choice for top secret R+D or contract negotiations.
Awesome, pretty soon companies wont have to store any of "their" data on their own servers. Facebook - Company info/announcements/chat OneDrive/Google/Dropbox - Company documents VOIP Services - Company communications All stored in clear-text obviously (or at least not encrypted by company using the service before transfer to said services, same thing really). I myself think this trend is hilariously ridiculous, but…
Well, what's your threat model that you are worried about? I would imagine all of these companies have much better security and reliability than most internal IT departments. And I don't see them snooping for their own purposes. The NSA can get what they want anyways. The one big issue is subpoena's / third party doctrine issues, but I imagine for many companies that's a decent tradeoff for the reduced IT overhead /…
Well, Google does read your email to show you better ads. But they never made a secret of that.
> The NSA can get what they want anyways.
If they really want to, yes. That doesn't mean one shouldn't try to make it as hard as possible for them. They won't bother if their cost/benefit analysis says you aren't worth it to get out the big guns. (Reliable 0 days aren't cheap and using them too often soon makes them worthless.)