- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
The irony of this being on wired, that hides everything besides the headline and first paragraph behind a paywall.
I find it pretty funny that some jerkoff who works for facebook is complaining about privacy violations. The companies entire business model relies on disrespecting privacy.
I don’t want to live in a world where humans—employees or otherwise—are exploited for their training data.
Does anybody read the job description anymore?
Also meta is all about exploiting people, not sure what did they expect joining it
Nobody takes responsibility for the consequences of their work. It’s always, “well people need a job”
Fuck that
Yeah yeah, but surveillance is meant for everyone else, surely not for them. The safest place to be is inside the lion’s den innit.
Until it isn’t.
Meta workers privacy invaded.
Removed by mod
Fastest way to get employees to unionize!
Not a privacy invasion if it’s a laptop given by the company. Do not do personal tasks on a computer you don’t own, keep your personal devices and work devices seperate.
Not a privacy invasion if it’s a laptop given by the company.
This might not be an option open for everyone but you could be not working for a shitty company in the first place
This exactly. My company has a disclaimer everytime you log into a system to tell you as much. “there is not expectation of privacy”.
We don’t have the same level of keylogging and webcams access that they are talking about here. But I think most people would be surprised at the amount that we can see.
Why is this man getting downvoted?? I’m not saying what META is doing is right…but to act surprised as an employee of META??? Like if I worked there I’d ASSUME they already were doing that without telling me, why the hell would you do private stuff on a device you do not own?? Whats next? We getting shocked when you get robbed in a area with a high crime rate?
The difference is between doing it secretly or in the open.
I assume I’m monitored on my work computer, but me and my company both know they aren’t supposed to.
When they admit it and make you look them in the eye and consent to it, that’s when the social contract unravels in a big way.
There’s a line from a great comedy in which an oligarch is berating his son for playing elaborate games to ruin the life of a schlub who once disrespected him, right after we see the oligarch at a party where people are shitting on glass coffee tables with prostitutes under them. The son says, “How is it any different from what you do?!?” And the dad says, in a posh Oxford accent, “The glass, son. The glass.”
I would expect privacy on a library computer, or an internet cafe, but a computer given by a company is dedicated to work and work only, unless specified explicitly otherwise (as in given fully as a gift). Letting people run unknown software on a company computer could lead to malware attacks and data breaches, so companies that give its employees computers will manage how they’re handled with an IT team.
Access to keystrokes and webcam are a large jump. If you’re worried about malware there’s a thing called an admin account that these employees don’t get access too. Tracking is not equal to protection.
This man works
Yea, she was asking for it wearing that and all… /s
Beside the « personal tasks » or generally any personal data that might be processed locally by performing those - which are likely allowed to a certain extent by internal policies in large companies - the behaviour determination by keystroke / microphone / camera analysis is a privacy concern whatever data is involved.
It’s a level of surveillance that goes way to far. This is indeed a step too far.
