Hey /g/, I want some other opinions from people. I work at a small agency that uses Slack (chat service) for communications in and outside of the office.
It's a small group of people (less than 15) and recently we received a notification that they had enabled compliance exports. This means that they will be able to view all communications going forward between staff, even those sent in private messages.
I'm fully aware when you're using a work computer that you have zero expectations of privacy; but this is very counter to what is-- or was--- our workplace culture until this point.
I'm really uncomfortable with this decision, and I'm wondering if there is any point trying to discuss this with the owner? It wont result in me getting fired, I'm assured of that, but it wont necessarily change anything besides letting them know it has rustled some jimmies. It's just made me pretty personally disillusioned, because it lends itself to a culture of mistrust which I find hard to stomach when we're a small, close-knit team.
How would you proceed with this? Would you bother saying anything? If you would, how would you broach the topic without coming off too neet?
>>53784325
I would speak my mind, yes.
But if this is what's required going forward, I would remove the software from any non company issued device, and flat refuse, due to work life balance, to install it on any device that will touch your personal network, or any device that you personally pay for.
>>53784347
OP here. I like this position-- but it wouldn't fly as being able to reply to urgent messages is an expectation of the job. They could always log public-channel messages prior to this, and that didn't really bother me. I'm more bothered because this opens up all conversations had through Personal Messages between co-workers to them which effectively mutes any shit-talking or just plain personal convos employees may be want to do from time-to-time to destress.
Our culture is a very progressive one, we're very lax on most things. This runs very counter to how this business labels and runs itself-- and I'm just finding it hard to reconcile with this approach.
>>53784388
>>53784388
Is your job an on call job or salaried job anon? Otherwise why would you conduct any kind of work on your off time using your personal affect?
>>53784388
>>53784388
If you're worried about not being able to "shit-talking or just plain personal convos employees may be want to do from time-to-time to destress" then why don't you just get your co-workers together who you do this stuff with and use a different app like Signal for example.
>>53784325
This is a fairly standard practice in my experience, purely due to export compliance. I have secretly known the entire time that all technological means of communication is monitored due to export compliance and our company's electronic communications plan, because I actually read the powerpoint when I was hired. When some other employees found out from word of mouth, they were upset. I understand this to be common practice though. And my intro to IT courses have illuminated to me the need for monitoring of employee actions taking place within the company network, due to idiots sharing virus mp3s even though it's 2016.
So on top of that you have export compliance rules which dictate that in the event of an INTENTIONAL breach of data sensitive to export technology limited by the EC, that the necessary info can be gathered and investigated. I'm talking stupid shit like chinese spies reverse engineering simple tech to get a leg up on national technological progress races. Which will never happen at your company. But if they're having to do export compliance now then there are umbrella rules that come along with that, and protecting from chinese spies sending each other texts on company computers is what most of that umbrella is designed for.
Speak your mind, but listen when they say "Yeah I know it's gay, I'm sorry about that."
>>53784401
It's hourly right now because of my own schedule; would be salary otherwise. This made sense from both sides and was mutual.
Also just the nature of the work that sometimes work outside of regular hours is necessary. Still remunerated for this, and it's fine.
Prior to this people would actively discuss things and banter about non-work related things because we're all close like that. I find that I am purposefully limiting my communication now as a result of it.
>>53784418
I could understand this if it had been the case prior-- but it was not the case in the past. Prior to utilizing this we simply used walking over to someone's desk and discussing when necessary (small enough office for this to have worked). This agency is too small to be bound by any sort of policies like this and it is solely an owner's-discretion decision, I'm unfortunately pretty sure of this.
I do appreciate the insight though. It at least lends some better perspective.
>>53784417
This is of course a solution but it's more the fact that this goes against what this company stands for in a lot of ways that has me so bothered. I until this moment didn't feel something covert like that would ever be necessary.
>>53784388
Use some other chat service for your casual conversation with coworkers.
> he complains about his comfy office job
> he thinks the computer he uses bought by the company is his
> he slacks off at work by doing things that can get him fired
kids today and their sense of entitlement
> " If I see it, it should be mine, and some one else should pay for it " --OP
>>53784555
>but it's more the fact that this goes against what this company stands for in a lot of ways that has me so bothered.
one thing you eventually realize anon, the only thing that any company stands for is making money. Plenty of them have principles about the way things oughta be when they get founded, but these will always be abandoned when they come into conflict with something that makes money.
Remember how Google's motto used to be "Don't be evil"?
>>53784591
This is a service used both on work devices, and on my own personally-purchased ones. I also said that I was aware I had no entitlement to privacy on their computers. Did you even read the OP?
I am not worried about being fired for anything I do at work, I'm a valued employee. I am just worried at the privacy invasion/cultural shift it represents.
>>53784637
I worry this is the case...
>>53784325
Small company?
Then one of you is definitely cucking one of the guys at the top by fucking his wife, and he wants to know who. He expects people to get complacent after a while of the compliance logs being turned on, and hopes the person will drop themselves in the shit.
Trust me, I'm an expert.
suggest everyone use otr. not because that would actually be a good thing to do, but because it would be funny
>>53784325
It's a corporate environment just like corporate email is, you don't have expectation of privacy in that domain.
Keeping work separated from the rest of your life is healthy, you should do it.
>>53784325
you can't do shit about it. I'd use something like hangouts instead if you wanna talk smack about work.
>>53784388
if its on a personal device of yours in your own home i'd flat out refuse and say that you want to be issued a company device or you walk. Having this shit on your own stuff you pay for is flat out surveilence and illegal in many countries. Your company either provides you with their own stuff or you don't work for them.
look, it's Slack, it's like your email address the company gave you. part of the point is that it's fully under their control. if you really need to say something that's truly private use a non work controlled method of communication.
