Re:WFH – Watched from Home: Office 365 and workplace surveil...
by godelski on Sunday June 04, 2023 @08:55PM
(#36191061)
> That is a non-issue regarding privacy
This is definitely not true and results from a limited perspective. How you get that information is important. This is quite difficult to do accurately if we're being honest, and you should work it out (write down how you'd measure it, then determine how to exploit it, then repeat). I think you'll find that the only way to do this results in invasion of privacy.
I'll give a more familiar example of how things that are well intentioned and at first look appear innocuous. We encourage the use of pronouns to correctly address people and give them proper respect (a great goal and something we should always do!). But on the other side, it forces people to pick an identity and draw a very discrete line (as opposed to more flexible boundaries and terms). It does not account for gender fluidity and it forces people to out themselves or hide even more. Which can happen in ways out of their control (e.g. someone else sets up a name tag knowing their preferred pronouns in a setting the person may not want to reveal their identity). Often more important when someone is figuring themselves out.
The problem is not intentions, it is that life is messy. Nothing is monolithic or universal. The best intentions can lead to amplifying the very thing you are trying to prevent/resolve. Another famous example is removing convicted criminal history questions (ban the box) from job applications[0]. Things are complicated and never are like what you assume they are. Simple models aren't good enough and you need to encourage people to stop saying "it's obvious" or "it's simple". It never is and that always leads to harm.
This is definitely not true and results from a limited perspective. How you get that information is important. This is quite difficult to do accurately if we're being honest, and you should work it out (write down how you'd measure it, then determine how to exploit it, then repeat). I think you'll find that the only way to do this results in invasion of privacy.
I'll give a more familiar example of how things that are well intentioned and at first look appear innocuous. We encourage the use of pronouns to correctly address people and give them proper respect (a great goal and something we should always do!). But on the other side, it forces people to pick an identity and draw a very discrete line (as opposed to more flexible boundaries and terms). It does not account for gender fluidity and it forces people to out themselves or hide even more. Which can happen in ways out of their control (e.g. someone else sets up a name tag knowing their preferred pronouns in a setting the person may not want to reveal their identity). Often more important when someone is figuring themselves out.
The problem is not intentions, it is that life is messy. Nothing is monolithic or universal. The best intentions can lead to amplifying the very thing you are trying to prevent/resolve. Another famous example is removing convicted criminal history questions (ban the box) from job applications[0]. Things are complicated and never are like what you assume they are. Simple models aren't good enough and you need to encourage people to stop saying "it's obvious" or "it's simple". It never is and that always leads to harm.
[0] https://econofact.org/the-effects-of-ban-the-box-on-the-empl...