[yjftsjthsd-h]

My work puts a big banner on the login screen that says up front that they can and will record and monitor everything on this machine. And IMO that's fine, because it's their machine. If they wanted to do that to my machine it would be a problem.

[mr_toad]

No place I’ve worked has ever told their employees that they do this, but most of them do. Some employees I’ve spoken to are quite surprised that their “encrypted” connections are being monitored.

[suprjami]

People should probably read their employment agreements and IT usage policy. I'd be surprised if it's not written somewhere.

Besides which, using someone else's computer with an expectation of privacy is the wrong expectation.

[Terr_]

I agree it's legally fine, but morally/socially there are ways to go-too-far.

[knome]

there's nothing wrong with corporations tracking use of their hardware.

they have to watch for data exfiltration and attempts to download malware, etc.

don't use a corporate device for anything you don't want work to see.

use your own. that's not a hard ask.

[Terr_]

> there's nothing wrong with corporations tracking use of their hardware.

As written, that means they can secretly enable the camera and microphone to surveil my house, supposedly to check the usage (or non-usage) of the hardware.

Surely that's very "wrong", if not also illegal in most places. Not everything about or near the hardware is fair game.

[pigeonhole123]

That's clearly not what was meant

[Terr_]

No, read what they're replying-to.

I wrote one sentence about how "there are ways for companies to go too far", which I think is pretty dang uncontroversial and trivially-true. However that user replied with what is clearly a disagreement, with corporate justifications and placing sole responsibility on employees to avoid the hardware.

This leads to two competing options:

(A) They simply can't imagine any scenario where a company might "go too far" and be at fault.

(B) Their stance is much milder, but for some reason they are replying to a straw-man argument that isn't what I actually wrote.

Of those two ambiguities, I went with (A), but if you think (B) is a more-charitable reading...

[knome]

Or that the discussion was about information on and being transmitted through the devices and I was limiting my opinion on "there being nothing wrong with corporations tracking use of their hardware" to that scope, and not extending it to include spying on people in their homes using the device peripherals.

No, they shouldn't be flicking on your laptop camera or mic remotely, as these are pretty obviously violations of your privacy.

[lukeschlather]

My rights are not subordinate to my company's, if anything it should be the reverse. My employment contract is intended for mutual benefit and the company also reserves the right to privacy from me in some things, even things in the scope of my employment. It should be acceptable to do things outside the scope of your employment using corporate devices, and you should retain a reasonable expectation of privacy when doing so.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

There are some places where I don't really have an opinion; if you work in, I dunno, pet grooming, and you and your employer agree to... "shared custody" of a device then sure. But I'm not sure that's possible in some fields. As I understand it, financial companies are legally mandated to record every single message sent/received on the machine so they can prove that nobody's doing insider trading or whatever. I would kind of expect something similar for medical field companies. I'm open to suggestions, but I can't personally see a way to uphold that obligation while giving the employees privacy if they want to use the company device to ex. check their personal email.

[Scarblac]

It's "fine" in the way that I would leave that company at the first opportunity.