> But that information could also be seen on a user-by-user basis, potentially allowing managers to identify individual employees who weren’t contributing enough
A good manager should identify employees who aren't contributing enough and work with them to understand how to empower them to contribute more. But the way to gauge this is by actually looking at the work they produce; snooping on their computer usage is a poor substitute used by poor managers.
They definitely stay hard in the platform category.
Needless to say, I quit after 2 weeks.
Ha ha seriously though, I was on a video call and people heard my laptop fans kick on and thought I was compiling.
In reality, I opened Jira.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-...
It's fully participated in the UK media race to the bottom.
https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua...
How about
"Microsoft regrets the bad PR raised by workplace surveillance feature"
Or even
"Microsoft delighted at PR raised by workplace surveillance feature and wants to continue the publicity"
Is it "workplace surveillance" when you can view the calendar appointments of your coworkers? Or see stats about the changelists submitted, bugs resolved, etc. of each person? Or see their dot when they are viewing a document?
Maybe these Microsoft features crossed a threshold of creepiness past which the world should not go. But to act like it's a settled conversation, where right and wrong are so obvious that the issue was agreed upon long ago, does not match with reality in my opinion.
But I think that pedantic point hints at something that creates this problem: most jobs have a degree of performance to them (i.e. act out the part). Which is perhaps why improv gets recommended for workgroup development every second Sunday.
It's "insights" include utter garbage like "workers who share files on onedrive cause time savings vs. those who share files via email"
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/admin/product...
I feel like this is fine as long as it's opt-in. I cannot imagine having to go back and fourth about calendar slots every time I have to schedule a meeting, and this feature saves so much time.
> Or see stats about the changelists submitted, bugs resolved, etc. of each person?
I'm a bit ambivalent about these metrics. At least they are somewhat related to work results, rather than "how busy are you" metrics like those rolled back by MS. It's also just a visualization of data which is already publicly available in the git history.
> Or see their dot when they are viewing a document?
This one I think is a bit different. In a world with remote collaborative editing, I think this gives you more visibility about who might be looking over your shoulder while you are working rather than being a form of surveillance.
> This one I think is a bit different. In a world with remote collaborative editing, I think this gives you more visibility about who might be looking over your shoulder while you are working rather than being a form of surveillance.
It's two sides of the same coin isn't it? Depending on the feature is used makes it creepy, but the feature itself isn't necessary creepy.
The MS Office features which are relevant to the article let my manager see what I am doing without my knowledge. The fact that someone can watch you without your knowledge is what makes it creepy.
This doesn't have to be so black and white. I can "view" the calendar of my coworkers. That means - I see if the time slots are taken or not. I don't have to see what the actual meetings are.
How do you define that? I ask because I am guessing people who are angered by this have no idea what data employers can already access. Have you seen the data that most MDM or network monitoring software can provide about employees? That is much more sensitive data than what Microsoft is reporting and I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers. The Microsoft stuff seemed intrusive and wrong headed, but odds are if your employer wanted to use that they are also using some much worse stuff too. I might even consider the Microsoft tools helpful as a canary in a coalmine for other bad practices that are much harder to see.
Simply because companies have other tools for which to spy on their employees does not justify Microsoft adding one more
The same logic applies in the US for differrent topics, so it should follow it applies within one company on different topics.
It’s just a case of ‘please ignore this problem because there is a bigger problem’
>Whataboutism, also known as whataboutery, is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
I am not trying to counter an argument by pointing out hypocrisy. I am simply stating there are bigger fish to fry. Maybe you object to that argument, but it wasn't whataboutism.
Nothing against the parent post; I see it all the time. You just were an handy target. :)
No. I have not, not really. I would like to understand more about this, however.
I've asked about this but the "stock answer" is always along the lines of "The company owns the equipment, therefore they can do anything they want."
That stock answer leaves out a WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL about exactly what info is collected, how it's processed and some guidance about what's "normal" vs "extraordinary". Presumably it's possible for them to do "a lot", but no one who really knows is willing to explain this in a way that's useful. This would make a very interesting essay or in-depth investigative journalism article, I just don't understand why no one has done that, all writing about this just seems to boil down to the very boring "the computer equipment belongs to your employer" analysis.
I suspect that the vast majority of organizations do very little with this kind of surveillance power, but then, there's no way I can really know because either people stay silent about it or they have no idea.
I have also had to install MDM software in the past at companies with BYOD policies in order to get access to company email or corporate networks so the "they own the device" answer isn't always valid.
Pretty crummy for employees who can have their data wiped at any time by a petty employer.
>I haven't seen anyone really object to it in large numbers.
Again, whether or not people have complained about the other, existing workplace surveillance tools has absolutely no bearing the accurate description of Microsoft's new "feature" as a workplace surveillance tool.
>The Microsoft stuff seemed intrusive and wrong headed, but odds are if your employer wanted to use that they are also using some much worse stuff too.
Your employer's access to other, potentially more intrusive, surveillance tools also has no bearing on Microsoft's indisputable status as a surveillance tool.
>I might even consider the Microsoft tools helpful as a canary in a coalmine for other bad practices that are much harder to see.
This canary would already be dead if your previous statement about your employer's propensity to use other, more intrusive, surveillance tools is accurate. But in any event, even if Microsoft's new surveillance tool somehow benefited you by better informing you of your employer's devious intent, it still remains a surveillance tool, and should be accurately described as such.
I think it’s more that that battle is already lost, so it seems a bit silly to go on fighting it.
The fact that there is already something worse is a very poor reason for adding more.
Whether or not it is workplace surveillance is an opinion, not an objective fact. So they report the fact that someone had that opinion, not that it is fact.
It's a good thing - it's good journalism to do this.
For example the BBC will report a headline like <Man "walks on moon">, and some people react to that like 'why is it in quotes are they saying they don't believe it?' What they're doing is reporting that they have been told by a source that a man walked on the moon. The source may be the President of the United States, but they're still reporting what the source told them, because they weren't there they don't know they didn't see it with their own eyes. They just know what they were told and so they quote that.
It's a principle, and sometimes principles look funny but the point is you always do it... on principle.
My comment was directed more towards news where they would report, following your example, <Group a says "man walked on the moon", group b says "nobody was ever in the moon">.
When it is reported in this way it feels a bit lazy, under the pretense of reporting on the "facts" ("Somebody said something" is a fact too, but were we on the moon or not?)
I guess all I am saying is sometimes reporting from the perspective of "there are two sides" (for every issue) is not neutral. It is an instance of False dichotomy, and removes all nuance on the debate (only options pro or against)
Are you sure that your employer hasn't installed any custom software/antivirus in your work device? Likely they have.
I would think the bigger issue is that there isn't any basis to say that the metrics collected are a realistic capture of productivity. Measuring stuff and understanding measurements is hard, and you don't want to make big and consequential decisions on a bullshit number.
It’s baffling that Microsoft thought this was a good idea in the first place.
"we are just honest business man - just look at the extremely creepy shit Microsoft get up to"
Or are you perhaps saying that the The Guardian have some kind of indirect interest in massaging Microsoft's rollback into an admission of guilt?
I'm curious why you suggest it might be corporate propaganda.