Chinese Government hypocrisy reaches a new low point.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
1 Like
It isnât necessarily an unreasonable security measure on the part of China but
- that doesnât mean that I know whether Tesla vehicles are or are not backdoored, and
- gold star to China for hypocrisy.
In the hypothetical situation that a backdoor exists, it may have been put there with or without Teslaâs knowledge, and that is important to remember about any manufacturerâs equipment.
The general point is valid, and getting worse and worse. With everything from your car, to your inverter, to your light thinking that it is good functionality to be on the internet, need an app to control, ⊠the number of potential security vulnerabilities is growing by the day.
6 Likes
Given the amount of code in a Tesla, better safe than sorry.
(I thought there was an XKCD version of this, but couldnât find it.)
1 Like
The nightmare continues:
2 Likes
Then there are the ones who are monitored this way already but they just donât know it.
Perhaps this will cool the ardour of employees for WFH.
2 Likes
I thought that one of the benefits of WFH is that you donât need to âdressâ for the office. If you are on camera the benefit of working in your nightwear (or less) or having the freedom to scratch your bum without checking to see who is watching vanish.
This looks to me like the desperation of a company whose firm belief is that people who are not supervised closely will goof off and they are so blinkered they cannot think of any way to gauge performance other than having eyes on those untrustworthy necessities called staff. Sad for all.
5 Likes
It is interesting that the company will not use the cameras in what is apparently the third-most surveilled city on Earth - London (it used to be at the top of that list).
I suspect British and Australian labour laws prohibit such incursions into the home. US employees have no real rights, so are easy to bully into acceptance of surveillance.
4 Likes
Except for the First and Second Amendments. 
A slogan on the desk in plain view of the camera might be able to say all sorts of things about the boss and be a perfect reminder.
-
âThe King is a fink! Will boss be the next king?â
Excuse the lack of imagination. -
No need to suggest the usefulness of the other amendment in dealing with problem cameras.
ooo⊠end of humour âŠooo
Reality?
The rights to privacy in your own home are well established in English based law. Raises some interesting legal issues as to the status of WFH being a workplace, whose workplace it is and who is responsible for it. It may not be such an obvious answer.
This means that employers must tread an increasingly fine line between discharging a duty to take reasonable care that the place of work is safe and what may previously have been considered an employeeâs right to privacy at home.
1 Like
Sorry, but the First Amendment only stops government from preventing freedom of speech. Employees can definitely be fired for what they say, as we have seen in all sorts of cases.
As for the Second Amendment, it is cruel to bears and should be abandoned entirely. (Donât see many âmilitiasâ lately either.)
1 Like
Call centers are renowned for their monitoring of workers in all sorts of productivity aspects. Calls per hour, toilet or other breaks, calls are monitored.
Why would working from home for these workers even be countenanced unless the same monitoring, or more, be mandated?
But of course. All perfectly safe. Your privacy is assured. Nothing to see here. 
Meanwhile, the founder of the company (absolutely no current connection. Really)
3 Likes
He left the company a few decades ago, and sold his stake in 2011. McAfee has since lived the life of an international man of mystery.
4 Likes
If someone is working in a home then it becomes a workplace and is subject to some of the same laws regarding surveillance. (Can vary from state to state.)
Certain areas of the workplace are excluded by law from surveillance e.g. toilet, bathroom. Otherwise the main requirement is that the employee be informed. Consent is not required.
Probably best to consult a lawyer if you want a better answer.
Even if we were to accept that, how do we know that AV surveillance in the home is not being conducted 24x7 by the employer? How do we know that the surveillance is not subverted for other purposes, legally or illegally?
This is a new situation and at the very least a discussion should be had before accepting and allowing this extension of surveillance, and not blindly stumbling on towards 1984.
2 Likes
- Use a specified work space for work, and be well away from it when discussing private/personal matters.
a. You may want to have such conversations next to running water, although I suspect modern software would easily overcome such distractions. Oh well, it allegedly worked during the Cold War. - Make sure all cameras are covered when not in use, and as far as is possible all microphones are either covered or subject to electronic interference.
1 Like
From an old mate in Canada who posted this on FB. He wrote it well.
Its a pervasive meme lauded by companies moving to the digital economy, along with governments and other aspirants to becoming modern, that your data is safe. Having worked for decades in the computing and telecommunications fields, I can say that data on network connected devices has NEVER been safe. Of course, the organisations wanting to export costs to customers and clients by moving online are constantly applying both the carrot and the stick to get you to agree to online interactions, and in the name of securing your data, they collect all kinds of information from you, like your cell number, your motherâs maiden name, ancillary credit card information, camera scans, bank references and in some areas, bio-metric information. Well, we are bombarded daily with news reports about yet another information breach, be it social media, government or commercial interest organisations. Of course, they immediately spin the news to export responsibility to you, indicating that you need to change your online habits, change your passwords or use better security on your accounts. Its a racket. You can not ever do enough, and sadly, neither can these organisations. Your data is not safe. The minute you give it out, its out there on the net forever. And its available anywhere on the globe to anyone with a phone or computer terminal who wants it.
Plus in these days of USB sticks one could imagine even without the network someone on site could grab whatever, so the ultimate question is how hard it is made to get that information and who and how many is one going to trust.
6 Likes
Another doozey.
1 Like
While those are both good suggestions, neither of them goes to my actual question: If If If a person accepts that surveillance in the home is legitimate and inevitable in the era of WFH, how do we know that surveillance is not being conducted 24x7 i.e. outside working hours?
So itâs not about what I can do to counter the excesses of my employer, it is about knowing when those excesses occur and being able to stop them (or at least impose a legal penalty if it is not stopped). In other words, there are gaps in the legislative framework. This is usually the case. Society changes first. The law attempts to catch up.
Anyone whose employer is attempting to impose a home surveillance regime should be pushing back at least until there is a legislative framework i.e. that specifies what is reasonable (legal) and what is not reasonable (illegal).
From what Iâve seen over the last year or so, not everyone has the facilities to achieve that. 
I leave my webcam (external USB device with camera + microphone) disconnected when not in use. Thatâs fairly robust against a range of abuse.
2 Likes
Definitely this. Bear in mind, though, that any speaker connected to your computer is also a microphone. Just in case youâre being paranoid.
And of course if your work issues a laptop there is no guaranteed way to turn off the microphone without voiding the warranty.
2 Likes
Facebook will not notify the 533 million users exposed in online database.
Canât complain about the service. There isnât any.
2 Likes
Well the information obtained was not recent, it was from 2019.
Also, the information was from public profile entries. If a FB user chooses to publish, for all the world to see, info about themselves, then why should anyone but themselves be responsible if that is revealed somewhere else on the Net.
2 Likes
