- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Walmart, Delta, Chevron and Starbucks are using AI to monitor employee messages::Aware uses AI to analyze companies’ employee messages across Slack, Microsoft Teams, Zoom and other communications services.
You must log in or # to comment.
There’s going to be an article one of these days in Business Insider or something saying “employees increasingly establishing secret outside-of-the-company communication channels and sharing trade secrets over them.” And then the companies are going to get all pissy about “muh trade secritssssss” and issue nagging emails to the whole company not to set up Discords to evade their employee monitoring solution that they pay a gorillion dollars a year for. And because it was the CEO’s idea, he can’t just back down and admit it was wrong. He has to keep doubling down.
employees increasingly establishing secret outside-of-the-company communication
Like they’ve not made a WhatsApp group already lmao
You only communicate over company channels what you don’t mind appearing in the court room. They was already the case, now it’s just more so.
There seems to be a shocking amount of people that expect any amount of privacy on corporate owned systems, property, or hardware.
As someone in tech: as much as I don’t give a singular speck of interest in spying on what you’re doing, intensive monitoring of every single thing happening within the company systems is important and useful. Often these logs are vitally necessary for things like malware detection and remediation, data exfiltration detection and investigation, investigation into system and network issues, legal investigations or action (both for us, and when subpeona’d).
The amount of data we log, and I have access to, on employees actions on our systems is disturbing. But I would be lying if said that I haven’t encountered a legitimate need for a shocking amount of it.
A lot of retailers are replacing their standard phone systems with products from Zoom and other AI transcription enabled providers. In environments with audio recording, its reasonable to assume that relatively soon, full transcripts of conversations identified to individual speakers will be easily obtained, summarized and analyzed by AI. This will hopefully soon come under scrutiny for violating both two- and one-party consent laws for audio recording.
In a two-party-consent state, maybe.
But in a one-party-consent state, all that
PersonnelHuman ResourcesPeople Ops will do is point to a clause in your onboarding paperwork where you agreed to be recorded while on company property using company telephony equipment as a condition of your employment.As long as that’s in the employee paperwork it protects companies from some liability, but what about customer-employee or customer-customer conversations picked up by the system? I suppose a sign stating that video and audio conversations being recorded would further lessen employer liability but I imagine in the future laws about AI technology used on those convos will be put in place and the use of surreptious AI conversation analytics in retail environments will be more regulated. For now though it sure seems like a free for all and I wouldn’t be surprised at unethical use becoming somewhat common.
It’s already been ocurring for a while now without the summary and analysis by AI.
Automatic audio transcription has been kicking around for a long time now, at various levels of accuracy. The only important distinction of the speaking party is which side of the call (employee or customer) it’s coming from, and that doesn’t require any complicated analysis, just that your recordings capture incoming and outgoing audio on separate channels (which is how phone calls work in the first place).
As far as consent goes, any time you hear “this call may be monitored for training purposes” and stay on the line, as a customer you have consented to the recording. As an employee they usually just include it in your contract or one of the many things they get every employee to sign. Only really matters from a business standpoint if someone is willing to take you to court over it.
Most call center software/systems have these options built in at this point.
If you own it, don’t install a damn thing your employer demands. If they want security access on a device, they pay for it.
If you don’t own it, don’t use it for a damn thing that isn’t work-related and use it minimally for that. “Yes sir” emails and submitting reports. That’s it. Don’t do research, don’t surf the web, don’t accept a single personal call, email, or text. They don’t have any right to know anything that is not work related.
deleted by creator
Edit: the deleted comment was talking about how this has legal compliance implications, effectively that companies have to do this.
Thank you for highlighting this, I was struggling myself on how to word a message like this.
I work tech in a heavily regulated type of business, and have been neck deep in work on things with legal compliance considerations lately.
The issue with your “corporate snap chat” idea is that it would inevitably be used to share information relevant to potential legal proceedings.
Any space like that needs to be out of the business’s control and view to provide a legal air gap for any responsibility. Businesses would prefer their employees do that shit where they can safely argue no control or responsibility over it.
