[HN Gopher] Office 365 implementing AI to detect employees collu...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Office 365 implementing AI to detect employees colluding, leaving
       and more
        
       Author : CPAhem
       Score  : 22 points
       Date   : 2022-06-02 21:39 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (pupuweb.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (pupuweb.com)
        
       | tpmx wrote:
       | https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/compliance/co...
        
       | librarianscott wrote:
       | So, now we can't use Teams to have the "water-cooler" moments
       | that supervisors claim we need, but really we are having them on
       | Signal or IOS and they just can't measure that. Organizations
       | really, really, really hate transparency.
        
         | throwaway0a5e wrote:
         | They don't want you shooting the shit with company
         | communications mediums because that has limited upside and much
         | less limited potential downside.
         | 
         | Remember the famous "will the atom bomb test ignite the
         | atmosphere" gentleman's bet those scientists had? Nobody
         | actually thought it would but they discussed it semi-seriously.
         | Today discussing some fanciful bad outcome like that (be it the
         | mundane failure to deliver a product or something more
         | interesting) is a liability when it's sitting in your company
         | email servers. Even if that bad thing isn't what winds up
         | happening or the people speculating aren't in a position to
         | have accurate info the other side's lawyer or the regulator
         | will try and construe it as proof that the company should have
         | known ahead of time.
         | 
         | Or, more likely, say there's some sexual harassment or adultery
         | kerfuffle between employees. It's way better for the company if
         | none of that happened on company provided communications tools.
         | 
         | From the company's perspective it's avoidable risk to have work
         | communication tools be used for informal BSing between
         | employees. But they can't realistically prevent that so they
         | introduce Skynet in order to make people watch their mouths and
         | move those sensitive conversations elsewhere.
        
           | mc4ndr3 wrote:
           | Having employees is a big potential liability. Having a
           | corporation is a big potential liability. Drinking water is a
           | big potential liability. I guess just don't do anything at
           | all and then recalculate your risk metric.
        
       | throwaway0a5e wrote:
       | I have zero confidence that this system is smart enough to
       | differentiate between all these things and the legitimate
       | variants thereof (e.g. collusion and cross team collaboration are
       | basically indistinguishable) that companies actually want people
       | doing or discussing and likely outnumber the bad by orders of
       | magnitude.
        
       | humbleMouse wrote:
       | If you've ever thought your employer isn't monitoring the chat
       | then you're a fool. I'd go as far to say that if you think there
       | is any form of electronic communication that isn't being
       | monitored on some level you're also being foolish.
        
         | tpmx wrote:
         | One approach is to run/work for small companies with smart
         | people who trust each other without surveillance.
        
           | gtvwill wrote:
           | Lol depends what industry your in. Im a one man band msp so I
           | literally set up these catch all employee tracking systems.
           | Most folks don't realise they exist, even fewer use the data
           | produced by the systems. Legit 90% of the time it's just kept
           | in case of gov audit or something going pear shaped and we
           | need proof it wasn't us.
           | 
           | Trust is all well and good, but trust ain't gonna pass an
           | audit or get you out of trouble if shit hits the fan.
        
             | tpmx wrote:
             | Small software companies doing innovative things. Any
             | business area that _might_ need an external audit is a
             | severe red flag in this context. That also typically means
             | it 's less fun, IMO.
             | 
             | A software company running a Microsoft-based email/etc
             | system is also a red flag in this context. I mean, why...
        
               | gtvwill wrote:
               | Eh, it's in healthcare. Specifically disability support.
               | I get a kick out of building software that makes
               | providing support for these folks that need it. It makes
               | their lives better, helps them achieve their goals. But
               | it's also a largely tax payer funded industry in my
               | country so hence the audits. Which is ok, as a tax payer
               | myself I'd be pretty gutted if we as a country weren't
               | auditing companies getting our hard earned tax dollar
               | especially if they are in a sector like healthcare.
        
       | Angostura wrote:
       | Remember the gfood old days of Usenet with signatures that
       | deliberately contained keywards to try and DDoS the NSA's "line
       | eater"
        
       | m-p-3 wrote:
       | Next step will be to detect potential attempt at unionizing.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-06-02 23:00 UTC)