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

> because a threat is happening

because an "alleged" threat is happening. Still, cause for gathering evidence, sure.

> I don't get a choice when the lawyer shows up and says we need to look at X's account

And now with this, they'll use a different communication method that you dont have access to and now youre back to square one. The best you can hope for is that theyre ignorant of these changes so you can catch them.

> ... at the point I am asked to look at your account, I get the feeling you are on your way out anyway or will shortly have a lawyer or the police contacting you.

ah, guilty until proven innocent

> The communication systems you use as an employee are not yours.

This is true, and I dont think slack is necessarily wrong in providing this access - but you shouldnt assume that communications that the user doesnt want the company to be privy to is necessarily malicious or illegal.

If you are having legitimate complaints about your job and you want to vent or validate your concerns before proceeding, you might want to have a private conversation with a coworker - and you might legitimately be afraid that your unfiltered, undiplomatic private conversation might be taken out of context or retaliated against.



You made many good points, but I'll take issue with this one:

> If you are having legitimate complaints about your job and you want to vent or validate your concerns before proceeding, you might want to have a private conversation with a coworker - and you might legitimately be afraid that your unfiltered, undiplomatic private conversation might be taken out of context or retaliated against.

If you were retaliated against for your legitimate complaints in private Slack conversations (via firing, harassment, etc) then the records could be subpoenaed for you to prove WHY you were being targeted.

It works both ways.


The company isn't a court "alleged" is plenty enough for the company to look at the communication system it pays for to figure out what is going on. It has a communication system to communicate about business.

> And now with this, they'll use a different communication method that you dont have access to and now youre back to square one. The best you can hope for is that theyre ignorant of these changes so you can catch them.

Good, then its security and HR's problem. We tell everyone we own the communications systems (its even in the employee handbook).

> ah, guilty until proven innocent

Yep. Welcome to the corporate environment in the US. Frankly, if they think you used the company e-mail / Slack to do your activity then I don't think we are dealing with Moriarty here.

> but you shouldnt assume that communications that the user doesnt want the company to be privy to is necessarily malicious or illegal.

Then use your own non-company communication system (e.g. text, home e-mail) or go to lunch - how hard is that?


It would make a lot more sense to take your unfiltered and undiplomatic private conversation to a nearby private establishment. If you are remote and can not do this I would simply use a not supplied by work phone. This is for your protection and whoever you bring along to vent. There have been at least two occurrences in my career which have forced my hand on employee communication and in both cases, a blanket refusal was not an option. If you don't want to say something publically don't assume anything your company pays for is private until our society changes its views on where the expectation of privacy exists.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

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

Search: