I don't see where it says it's already a feature. The note itself (not that post) says it might be available in the future but it's not there right now:
Messages and files shared in 1-1 chats are only browsable and searchable in HipChat by the two people involved.
"While admins do not have access to browse or search 1-1 chats through functionality within HipChat, this is an option we may provide in the future for organizations to opt-in to. If made available, it will not be retroactive, and we will be sure to address how affected users can be notified that their chats are subject to viewing by their admins"
It does say the organization can email them and ask for that so while technically possible it's not so easy for the admin to snoop.
I mentioned earlier in this thread, privacy was already kind of broken. Given your account was registered with organization email, admin could reset your password and look at your private chats (like when you leave a company). Doing that would perhaps be violation of terms, but I don't think many would care particularly in developing countries where legalities of such things are joke.
if said service is provided by the employer, they own the data/communications and have every right to monitor the service. same goes for work email: employers have access to this. it isn't illegal for them to access these communications done on a work account.
That doesn't really matter, because they don't need to. All it takes is one crypto-savvy person taking an interest and finding a fault, then posting about it.
Even if they do actively cheat and provide some obscure not-really crypto to give an impression of security, they need to put in an effort, whereas with serverside encryption they could cheat for free. There is also a constant risk of some techie discovering their lack of security.
Anyway, it doesn't matter if you consider auditable security imperfect. Auditable security is objectively more trustworthy than non-auditable security.
It would be able to tell if the move was a mistake if playing against a computer. A move that would be bad against a computer opponent might throw a human opponent off balance through surprise, or take the game into a type of board state which was unfamiliar and disorienting to the opponent.