Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why would anyone consider a company provided messaging service as private? Or even a company provided laptop, cellphone, etc.


People have terrible opsec.


Because private messages carry an expectation of privacy.

They're different parts of speech from the same root word, after all.


The only expectation of this is in your head. It is a fantasy that doesn't exist.


I know that legally, employee data has no expectation of privacy. But I'd like to gently push back here.

The word "private" means "having privacy" in the normal, everyday sense. Using that word to describe something that isn't private is lying. You and I both know there do exist many people who suffered consequences for not understanding the definition of that word.

In my opinion, the ethical thing to do is to use a different word when no expectation of privacy applies. And the upside is powerful: transparency gains trust.

Slack did this well: they call them "direct messages".


There’s no legal obligation of privacy on a work system though. Not in the US at least.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: