This is a cardinal rule for me. I have a personally-owned PC that is used for my work, but it is exclusively used for that purpose. The only extent of personal use on my work PC is this website. Everything else I will RDP from my work PC to a personal machine, or physically go use it. I've extended this ideology to other areas. I have a separate physical machine I use only for banking and stock transactions. It's kinda like a shitty DIY Bloomberg terminal in my kitchen.
I find that having multiple physical computers, each with a very specific purpose, is an excellent way to context switch and maintain that psychological isolation between duties. There are definitely security/privacy benefits as well, but I hesitate to delve into that rabbit hole of a discussion here.
Everything else I will RDP from my work PC to a personal machine
Even that would make me nervous, given keyloggers.
One benefit of working from home for the last few months is that there's no temptation to do anything non-work related on my company machine when my personal machines are right there.
I strongly agree. I go one level further. As an independent consultant, I have multiple clients (usually around 3-4 at any given time). I use a different laptop and mobile device for every client. I would take to them to client site -- when travel was a thing. I also use different VPCs on the cloud for each of them. And I have a different set of machines for my own business. This allows clients to specify whatever software policy they like on machines that connect to their network, wit out affecting anything else I do. I wipe the hard disks of the the relevant machines clean after end of the engagement. None of my clients has demanded that I install any 'bossware', primarily because I'm only paid on outcomes, not effort. So they don't really care how I do the work.
I've increasingly heard of places requiring that you put it on your personal phone for working class jobs. BYOD gone horribly wrong. The same app will also be the only way to get your timesheets, clock in, or trade shifts, etc.
I think a lot of middle managers for working class jobs see the inability to separate work life from personal as a critical feature. The ability to peer into their employees' lives gives them new levels of power over the employer/employee relationship.
If the app did give the employees the tools to separate their lives, the employer would churn to another app.
that a no for me. my phone is my phone. i am
betting this is grounds for a class-action lawsuit if you indeed have no other option than to install crapware on you PERSONAL phone
I hope that it's grounds for a class action given how abhorrent of a practice it is, but I bet as long as there's relevant language in your employment contract, it's kosher.
Sorry, I don't understand really. You are questioning to be required thinking about work during the time you are paid for to work? Again sorry if I failed to see sarcasm if intended.
You also don’t get to control how you process the info and what you remember.
In fact, skilled advertisers and psychologists and the kind of people who develop dark patterns for social media companies[1] likely have more control over it than you have.
[1] and your company’s glorious loyalty oath parade, logos on mugs on your desk, anti-union propaganda posters, slogan you recite on the phone, etc. It is all changing you one way or another.
I think I may just have a tainted perspective on this. I’ve worked in digital forensics/incident response for >10 years, so I have an appreciating for the level in which businesses need to protect themselves, and I’ve grown a fondness in never seeing my personal data end up under a litigation hold. It’s the same reason why I’m a strong believer in making sure to have different email accounts for work, personal, different side projects, etc.
Yeah that's definitely fair. I'm a bit paranoid and jump through more security hoops for myself than any employer has ever required... so if you're not the type of person that enables 2FA and uses password managers at a minimum, just do everyone a favor and use a separate device.
I could do that at my current company (long term relationship). But I feel safer by not doing that. I don't take care of every security risk on my private systems. I probably should but that is another matter.
For security purposes we route all internet request through our company VPN to scan for malware. Company notebooks are required to use the VPN tunnel and they do if you don't have admin rights and change that behavior. I think it would be really bad if all netflix traffic from employees gets routed through our companies internet connection. I don't want to put that on netflix support to figure out the problem people are having...
Without their knowledge? The use of these tools should be outlined during employee onboarding or explained during implementation/roll out. There is no good reason for them to be a secret.
That said, my statement was about helping people protect themselves. These systems will be used, and for legitimate reasons in many cases. Why not protect yourself from allowing them to overreach into your personal life?
That's not what a reasonable objection is about, and you're being intellectually dishonest when you attack this, the weakest argument. Here is a stronger argument, for your benefit:
Working requires us to form social relationships with our coworkers to get work done. Oftentimes, we're establishing shared language, and working tempo with coworkers through "inside" jokes, and other human forms of camaraderie. Not only would it be unethical to stamp the social aspect out of our working lives–which make up the majority of our waking hours, and a gross majority of our social ties–but it would also be imprudent, since removing social elements from working relationships would cripple them. It is necessary, and desirable, that we socialize with our coworkers to some extent.
The firm pits individuals–and groups–against one another in competition. Even in an ostensibly friendly, collegial workplace, the zero-sum reality of budgets and headcount encourage workers to jockey for position and push difficult, or unprofitable work onto others. Surveillance like this enables the most manipulative to exploit secret knowledge of the social relationships that are, again, necessary throughout the firm. A secondary effect of surveillance is the chilling effect: trust and camaraderie are hampered by the knowledge that one's every word can be used against them without recourse.
Firms regularly use information freely given to prioritize workers for layoffs. Decades of "employee satisfaction" surveys have facilitated the efficient firing of dissatisfied, burnt-out or mistreated workers. Surveillance offers the same facility, at higher fidelity.
If you are an executive, and you want to maintain dehumanizing working conditions, surveillance is a necessity and a boon. As surveillance increases, our working life becomes more prison-like, and our society progresses towards private autocracy. What astonishes me is how giddily those who profess to love Liberty readily shed it at work.
You bring up a lot of important points and I do agree with you on many. I’d love to hear your perspective when sensitive data is involved, what takes priority? Is it the privacy of the employee, or the customer? Can there be a balance that respects both?
You put me in mind of the debt peonage Europeans forced upon indigenous Americans in 1907:
> It was the agents and overseers sent into the region who were, much like the conquistadors, deeply indebted—in their case, to the Peruvian company that had commissioned them, which was ultimately receiving its own credit from London financiers. These agents had certainly arrived with every intention of extending that web of credit to include the Indians, but discovering the Huitoto to have no interest in the cloth, machetes, and coins they had brought to trade with them, they’d finally given up and just started rounding Indians up and forcing them to accept loans at gunpoint, then tabulating the amount of rubber they owed.
> In reality, then, the Indians had been reduced to slavery; it’s just that, by 1907, no one could openly admit this. A legitimate enterprise had to have some moral basis.
