[floatingatoll]

It is if you have a zero-tolerance policy and they break it.

Their IT department will certainly ban Brave to prevent future uses of Tor, now that they’re aware!

But there are many industries where a zero tolerance policy for Tor session origination from a desktop is absolutely legitimately appropriate, as it could otherwise be (even just one-time) exploited for massive potential harm to wealth and people.

There’s a popular view with some freedom folks that we shouldn’t have the right to search people who are visiting family in jail, and while they’re right from a purely theoretical “my rights” standpoint, from a pragmatic stance it is generally understood that it’s fair to try not to let weapons be given from visitors to criminals, even if abrogation of rights occurs — and if you forget and bring a knife someday, you may get banned from the jail, even though it’s just a mistake, because of how serious the safety and lives are at stake.

[ivraatiems]

Who would be comfortable working under such a policy? You'd never know what accidental action on your computer could lead to you being fired. Using a computer to do work is not like getting dressed and carrying a knife with you. You knew you put the knife there, you chose it. If you weren't thinking about the rules, that's on you.

A regime where any accidental fat-finger or triggering of an unknown keyboard shortcut results in dismissal will quickly produce an environment where nobody is able to work or do anything useful - as seems to be happening here.

[floatingatoll]

It doesn’t sound like a fun workplace, but nor should every workplace be fun. I’d really appreciate it if bankers and health insurance companies had to keep audited records and were disallowed encrypted / disposable backchannels, like Tor.

I assume that IT didn’t install Brave, the user did. No IT department at this strict of a company would approve a browser that actively inserts its own advertising into websites, much less has a Tor option builtin. So, then, why on earth would the user risk their employment by installing unapproved software without IT signoff?

If IT approved Brave and pre-installed it, then they would have grounds to contest the firing. That they’re let go suggests otherwise. One could likely predict the demographic of the let-go employee just by filtering for “would know and care about Brave” and “would not seek IT permission first”.

[ivraatiems]

Typically, workplaces this strict don't allow users to install software on their machines themselves at all.

This whole story still just sounds to me like a huge overreaction. I think we can invent a hypothetical situation where the company's behavior makes sense, or the employee's motives are impure, but I think it's much more likely that they just got scared and were rash and hurt an employee.

[GekkePrutser]

You can remove admin rights but portable software will still run just fine. It's actually really hard to stop unapproved software from running on Windows. You'll basically have to cut off all the methods of ingress like USB sticks and internet.

[GekkePrutser]

I thought in American prisons visitors mostly talk through glass? But maybe that's just something used in movies. Never been to an actual prison even here lol.

[ivraatiems]

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is: Often, but not all the time. Depends on how high-security the prison is, and what the purpose of the visit is. Meeting with an attorney, for example, you're likely in private and there may or may not be glass.

The addition of plexiglass (for instance) was considered an unwelcome one recently in some prisons: https://thecrimereport.org/2021/07/20/captives-behind-plexig...