[GekkePrutser]

As far as I understand this is not just email, but teams conversations as well (though I'm not sure if it applies to both voice & text or just text, but be aware that Teams already has voice to text built right in!)

And also be aware that the 'watercooler' conversation has been replaced with digital forms over the last 2 years, meaning a look over your shoulder to see who's within earshot is no longer sufficient. And it's not always obvious that someone (or something, in this case) may be watching.

In the last 2 years most of my comms with my colleagues went from 90% face to face to 80% digital. Big difference. And it's not healthy either to not talk about frustrations at work.

[alar44]

The last place I worked for used this. I didn't care.

Now I'm in the position to make this call for my org and I wouldn't use it.

This is a tool for org admins, this isn't MS being evil. If your company uses it, be pissed at them if you so choose, not MS.

[car_analogy]

Yeah MS is just making and selling tools to make dystopian omnipresent AI surveillance easier and more likely, they're not actually forcing anyone to use them, so it's 100% ok and moral.

[alar44]

That's not what this is, stop being so dramatic.

[prepend]

That’s sort of what it’s like as the development of these tools is not cool.

It’s like people who write spam software who say “it’s really up to spammers who choose to use this software, don’t blame us.”

There’s really not a positive reason to identify “leavers.” Their data exfoliation reason is bogus and should be prevented by other reasons anyway.

[alar44]

How is it not in a businesses best interest to identify who wants to leave? Are you assuming they'd get fired or something? Maybe they are integral to the company and they'd get a raise or some other perk.

Take your tinfoil hat off and get outside.

[prepend]

It’s not valuable information in that there’s no much a company can effectively do to change anything. From a security and operational risk perspective it should be covered under existing policies and everything else is fine to be reactive.

The false positive risk is more harmful than any benefit gained.

The odds of “I read your email and saw you’re thinking of leaving so here’s a raise” working are negligible.

This seems like a way for someone to waste time on thinking they know something useful.

I’d love to see how frequently people talk about this and leave. I expect there’s dozens or hundreds of instance of people who apply for a job or network looking for jobs vs people who leave. There’s no published data on identified leavers who leave so that’s where my assumption that this is garbage data.

[GekkePrutser]

Still, it's not good when someone has private concerns to intrude on these.

This barrier exists for a reason. It will only make coworkers more fake because they will watch more what they say. A panopticon is never good.

PS: If my work starts using this I will start doing a "compliance bingo", to try and trigger as many detections as I can every day :) And I will say so publicly.

[GekkePrutser]

It kinda is... "Dystopia as a service" :)