[tehjoker]

I hate to always be that guy, but this is the sort of situation in which one might wield the strike, a coordinated worker action, to prevent home spyware from being installed. If you work within a framework of uncoordinated individual action, domination of the individual by the interests of the corporation is the logical result.

[fiblye]

I'd like to hope that would happen, but I'm more afraid there'd be media/government complaints of "lazy workers with the privilege of working at home and doing nothing are STRIKING!" and people would eat it up.

There are people out there saying a minimum wage of $7.25 is too high and we should get rid of it entirely. I think in many places, workers would fear they'll lose even more by striking for privacy.

[tehjoker]

That's true. The anti-union propaganda would be present. The trick is making sure your message gets out there too and emphasizes the contradictions between the employer's desire and power to compel people to submit to invasive surveillance in their own homes and our rights to be free of such invasive measures through relatable stories.

The people that take the side of the employer are broadly the corporate owned media, but when hearing the labor side of the story, the public is often sympathetic because the majority of people are workers, not employers.

> There are people out there saying a minimum wage of $7.25 is too high and we should get rid of it entirely.

Those people are not the ones being subjected to such wages. People's political analysis is largely directed by material self interest. The vast majority of the population is made of precarious workers who resent the people that would say that.