>Facebook's information security team became involved in the situation and used the interns' location data to try and find out if they were safe. "They call it 'pinging them', pinging their Facebook accounts," the former security employee recalled.
>After the location data did not turn up anything useful, the information security team then kept digging and learned that the interns had exchanged messages suggesting they never intended to come into work that day — essentially, they had lied to the manager. The information security team gave the manager a summary of what they had found.
So basically, if a Facebook manager couches their request as concern for your safety, they can track your location on your personal account to uncover where you are? This makes me uneasy.
Now I wonder whether the companies are different or the times are.
Unless they're an exec, then they might negotiate an exit package or it wouldn't get to that point.
Didn't the Google Exec who was most recently in the news for sexual misconduct misuse data?
I'm not aware of that angle but if you know more info I'd love to read about it.
Google's real motto is "Be as evil as I can be". Facebook's motto is "Be like google".
"Now I wonder whether the companies are different or the times are."
I think that makes it clear that I'm at least asking the question you lead with (but do not appear to have read far enough in what I wrote to see...).
The accusation that I'm affiliated with Google PR is way off base and that should have been superficially obvious from what I wrote above. I suspect and hope, but cannot prove, that your other assertions are similarly wrong.
And I wasn't accusing you of being part of Google's PR team. I'm saying I am sick of the google pr that I see here, especially in relation to facebook. Everytime people bring up facebook, someone always tries to imply google is better.
But we are talking about employees communicating on the corporate platform.
This gets a lot clearer cut in my opinion if instead of Facebook, we say EvilCorp, and instead of "chat messages" we say we're talking about "company emails."
If I send my coworker at EvilCorp a number of emails on their work account on Tuesday about how we're totally going to get drunk on Wednesday instead of going to work, and they respond in agreement, do you still have a problem with the employer digging through those comms when the employees do a No-Call No-Show on Wednesday?
I mean this seriously; if you're going to coordinate your planned truancy-from-work event with other co-workers and use work email to do it, you should expect to get caught. You might find it scummy, but I don't think there's a court in the world that is going to declare that it was illegal, except maybe in Germany or some other country with super-privacy laws. Educate me for sure, if you know I'm wrong.
And even then, I suspect that there's a language they could include in their Employee Handbook that would make it OK. The company network is for company business. You're not usually entitled to hide your work-product from your boss. More seriously, something in the art of OpSec is lost today.
If you work at Facebook and do this, at least use Hangouts.
Then I elaborated and said the same thing, but more detail. This comment got one downvote and no replies.
Explain yourself please, whoever downvoted. I want to believe that you aren't just downvoting because you disagree.
That feels pretty invasive. Facebook tried to couch it in "genuine concern" for their safety. I'm not sure that holds water with anyone who's familiar with the workplace culture inside Facebook.
I would be more surprised if they had access to conversation with outsiders.
On the “genuine concern”, I joined several months after Snowden’s revelations. The security team was (and I’m assuming still is) very aware that State agents might try to access employee credentials. Overall, the company is very considerate for employees, typically no matter the cost (e.g. the freezing eggs things) and quite conscious to respect boundaries--but I would expect that a small chance that a hostile Nation state escalated to kidnapping employees is a stretch but not a big one. I’m a little surprised because the company prides itself on not judging, and actually doesn’t care much about time spent in the office. Interns might be given a shorter lead there.
With E2E encryption introduced to Messenger since a lot of that could have changed.
Do Facebook employees have separate Facebook accounts for work? My impression was that they don't, but I could be wrong.
If they're forced to use their "personal" account for work-related functions, I think that raises all kinds of privacy concerns that probably should negate the principle that employer ownership authorizes monitoring.
Is there an exception in the TOS for that? It's my understanding that they forbid regular users from creating multiple accounts, though enforcement of the rules is pretty ineffective.
The particularity of Facebook is that the service emerged from internal use, so Facebook internal (a subset of the main Facebook) was (or is) tied to Facebook Workplace. The technical implementation was… hacky when I was there. I hope it’s cleaner now.
Every company that uses the service has a service that is clearly distinct from Facebook (with black rather than blue branding). I’ve worked for four client companies with their own, including two (subsidiary) at the same time, so I have my own personal account, the Facebook Workplace account is deactivated but my comments are still visible internally; three more deactivated accounts and my current one. I used to have to toggle between three accounts and that was rather seemless.
Were they limiting themselves to the internal tools? I got the impression they could have used personal FB accounts.
The article (or atleast my reading of it) made it seem like these were straight up standard fb messenger chats.
When will Facebook bashing stop. It's well within FB right to read their employees evil scheming tricks.
Of all the companies to 'hate', I'd expect FB to be a much larger target than YT.
The idea of a blacklist makes me uneasy, but for example I will state on the record I think Mark Zuckerberg is a big doo doo head, but I don't think if someone tied this nym to my real name I'd be banned from FB's campus.
Really though, you can't point to logical reasons for a mass attack against strangers. Someone mentally unstable enough to do that could be triggered by anything.
A bit of backwards logic to justify the list contents, eh?
It’s cool that they’re not just picking people at random, but they are engaging in a level of electronic surveillance that would require a warrant if they were a government agency. Do they share this BOLO list with outside groups? Do they share the surveillance results with law enforcement or other people?
It’s disturbing behavior from an utterly disingenuous corporation. Zuck is like an incompetent Lex Luthor. We should expect him to announce a run for the presidency soon.
That said, if somebody went on one of my websites and commented that they were mad at me and planned to show up at my house and do nefarious things, well, yes I certainly would be on the lookout for that person.
This is so scary. That the company feels entitled to use that user data in any way they please is horrifying.
I would not be surprised if they are also using internal data to get to spy on spouses or ex, to stalk people, etc. Once the ethics of a company like this are zero, the possibilities are infinite.
This is why more regulation like the GDPR is needed. And also a closer supervision of the big tech companies.