[everdev]

> When I asked Mirovic about privacy concerns, he said that KeenCorp does not collect, store, or report any information at the individual level. According to KeenCorp, all messages are “stripped and treated so that the privacy of individual employees is fully protected.”

They collect meta data, but it's still a group invasion of privacy.

Also, the article reads like a sales pitch for KeenCorp.

[jedberg]

> but it's still a group invasion of privacy.

You shouldn't expect any privacy regarding anything you do at or for work (other than using the restroom). The email and chat servers are theirs, and they have every right to read the emails. Good companies will at least tell you when they're reading your email, but legally they don't even have to do that.

[raxxorrax]

Depends on where you are. In my country it is still a privacy violation and therefore illegal to look into mails of employees, even if private use is completely disallowed.

That is now relevant in the whole EU for example and it is a very sensible rule.

Maybe I am the conservative here, but I wouldn't expect my provider and mail provider to look into my private communication. Even if it is 100% their infrastructure.

Maybe we shouldn't expect it, but having a legislative insurance certainly helps.

[michaelmrose]

An email provider is providing you infrastructure in exchange for cash expecting them to violate your privacy because they can would be like expecting bic by virtue of selling you a pen claiming the right to read your diary.

Note that Microsoft actually DID violate user privacy by reading hosted emails when they thought it would help them catch a leaker. Institutionally they have never had a history of ethical behaviour regardless of how much their founder now gives to charity.

An employer provided email is another matter. Superficially all email ought to be company business in which at least one party is acting as the agent of the company. In reality personal matters are probably frequently intermingled even between two employees of the org providing the email. What's public and what's private becomes complicated.

If there is a dispute do you ask both parties to voluntarily turn over emails? In a dispute between a party inside and outside of the org do you make do on what you can get voluntarily turned over?

Do you merely make do without such evidence? Does one go to court and request such if needed from your own org? If that is the standard how does one enforce proper disclosure when there is no adversarial situation?

[rapnie]

> Note that Microsoft actually DID violate user privacy by reading hosted emails when they thought it would help them catch a leaker.

So does Yahoo/Verizon/Oath (recent HN thread) for commercial reasons (data-harvesting, targeting, ads). Google did this too until 2016, apparently. Note: automated, so probably not literally reading in person..

[astura]

>Superficially all email ought to be company business in which at least one party is acting as the agent of the company

Most employee manuals I have read actually directly state this in their company policy as an agreement of use of company email and internet.

[sgift]

Luckily, this is not the case in Germany. Here such behavior is illegal.

We have experience what happens when you give people unrestricted access to data to do with whatever they want. Spoiler: It leads to bad outcomes.

[jcims]

It’s not that cut and dry is it? It depends on whether or not the employer allows personal use of their internet/email infrastructure. If not, and if the user doesn’t have a professional responsibility to handle data that’s protected, employers are legally permitted to view the content.

https://www.mofo.com/resources/publications/employer-surveil...

[erikpukinskis]

Wait, so if I own a steel company and I fire a salesperson, I can’t go into the emails they sent from the computer I purchased for them to do negotiations with, to retrieve information about clients?

If that’s so, I’m quite shocked. How does this play out in courts? Does an employer in Germany have to sue an employee in order to access such information?

[UweSchmidt]

A very concerning attitude, to assume people have no rights at a workplace. Ironically and disappointingly this attitude seems prevalent among Americans.

[astura]

I don't think you can quite equate "monitoring of company email usage" with "no rights at a workplace;" also "stating a fact" is not the same as "assuming," it's not even the same as "advocating for" or "liking."

I doubt there exists a company anywhere that's not monitoring email at least for spam and viruses.

There's certain times where it's not only acceptable but actually required to "violate employee's privacy" by searching their personal possessions - think airline employees, prison employees, etc.

Most companies will have some sort of auditing software on their critical servers to detect (and report) both unauthorized access but also unauthorized activity. I seriously doubt this is illegal in Europe. It's very difficult to take serious the position "my boss shouldn't know I logged into the production server and downloaded the whole database because 'I have privacy.'"

[dsr_]

That's because Americans have significantly fewer rights at a workplace than, say, Europeans. It's not an assumption, or an advocacy, but a recognition.

[394549]

> A very concerning attitude, to assume people have no rights at a workplace. Ironically and disappointingly this attitude seems prevalent among Americans.

I'm an American, and it seems many of my countrymen think property rights should trump all other rights.

[sureaboutthis]

Especially when it's on company time about company business. It's still unnerving to know that but then, perhaps, it makes one more careful and give more thought to what they're putting out for others to say that might be construed as "on behalf of the company".

[toomuchtodo]

Which is why you should have your own out of band Slack team or other group comms outside of corporate control.

Don't say in email what you should say over the phone. Don't say over the phone what you should say in person.

[astura]

What are you (regularly?) saying to your coworkers you wouldn't want your boss to hear?

[toomuchtodo]

In some cases, you're attempting to unionize [1]. Some managers are less supportive of feedback than others. Depends on their experience and emotional intelligence. Management is not your friend, just as HR is for the company's benefit, not yours.

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/labor-board-backs-startup-engine...

> Despite their futuristic sheen, tech companies “actually operate like traditional industrialists and will go through old fashioned methods of suppressing workers,” he says.

[everdev]

That's the old argument "why do you need privacy if you're not doing anything wrong?"

The problem is there are grey lines everywhere and people are usually more judgemental of others than themselves even if they knowingly or unknowingly participate in the same behavior.

[Luc]

I'm surprised things would be that clear cut even in the USA.

Though it's certainly a very American thing for employees to argue that corporations having power over them is the right and proper order of things.

[dingaling]

I worked for a UK subsidiary of a US company. Right on the login screen was notification that all use and communication was subject to monitoring.

Why would it be otherwise?

You are paid to do the company's business with the equipment they provide. It's not a matter of 'power'.

Imagine a UPS driver taking the van to run errands for his friends. Few people would argue that it is inappropriate for UPS to track the van and fuel usage. Maybe he scrawls anti-management missives and keeps them in the glovebox. Why is IT different?

[lkramer]

Just because something is inappropriate at work, it doesn't follow that your employer should have carte blanche to breach your privacy on the off chance that you are doing it.

[everdev]

Yes, people abuse freedoms all the time, but to many a lack of privacy is a bigger threat.

Imagine someone who is breaking the law at work and someone who is breaking the same law in their home. Just substitute "employer" for "government" as a reason why people should be constantly and fully monitored without any probably cause. It's basically like saying everyone's electronic communication should be monitored at all times to see if they are feeling sad, angry, etc. which might put them at risk of committing a crime.

The right to privacy is fundamental to freedom and it shouldn't stop once you walk in the workplace.

[annabellish]

This attitude that the workplace is a minor, independent kingdom for the capitalists above you, where you shouldn't expect to be treated well or with respect is a scary one indeed.

Workers are not untrustworthy beasts that need to be corralled, or at least shouldn't be, and we shouldn't accept being told that we are. _We_ are the ones who create the value, _we_ are the ones who the world could not run without.

[awb]

I agree that workers should be treated with privacy and respect, but please don't overlook how important managers are.

The good thing about capitalism is that profitability wins. If a company can be more profitable without managers they will have a competitive advantage in the marketplace and that organisational structure will spread.

As humans we see leaders and a hierarchies in most of our organizations. They seem to be pretty helpful.

[annabellish]

_Managers_ can be extremely helpful, and I'd argue a good manager is just as much a creator of value. Managers != Capitalists. You cannot be a good manager if you don't trust the people you're managing, whether because you're untrusting or because they're untrustworthy. It's an untenable situation that must be resolved one way or another, and removing employee privacy and respect is not the answer.