Comments on: Protecting your Facebook privacy at work isn’t just about passwords

By: hal

hal — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:52:31 +0000

as many have said (sheryl sandberg being the most recent) "there is no work-life balance, there is only balance". the "don't use employer resources for facebook" argument might imply the converse - if i land a deal because of a facebook connection, should my employer be denied benefit from it? the balance is not between work assets and home assets - those are the lowest value assets here. the balance is among items of high and rreperable value - {privacy, trust and security} as a cross-product with {employer, family, friends, general public} such that i can use appropriate time and materials (physical or intellectual) for each of the roles i may assume during the day - employee, manager, parent, child, supplier, customer, volunteer, friend, and way too commonly, wrangler of bureaucracy.

By: Cory Doctorow

Cory Doctorow — Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:34:57 +0000

So, if your spouse visited you at work to tell you that s/he had AIDS, or your kid had cancer, or your mom had Alzheimer's, and your employer used a hidden mic in the parking lot to listen in on you, you'd be OK with that?

We're talking about employers who require 55+ hours a week from their employees, who expect employees to be on call all the time, and to do mandatory overtime, spying on their banking, on their private email, and on their use of health and other TLS-protected services. In secret.

Victim blaming is ugly and cheap.

By: eClipse

eClipse — Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:14:47 +0000

Or, you know, people could just "work" at work, not post thing on free public spaces that embarrasses them, and then stop worrying about this nonsense. The level of "don't get it" that users have doesn't surprise me anymore, but it does continue to amuse me.