Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

If Work From Home becomes a thing...

Options
1…1112141617…37

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    snoopboggybog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭snoopboggybog


    KyussB wrote: »
    Citrix is not what's being discussed - employers want tracking software on peoples WFH equipment, and in many cases personal equipment - cloud hosted workspaces are a related issue, but not with the same level of personal invasiveness.

    Of course employers have tracking on their own laptops, there generally part of a domain ffs and provide the encryption for it and track it along with tons of other area's.

    If your really this paranoid about a company accessing your network here's what you do:

    Buy a cheap second hand i5 desktop for 150 quid.
    Buy a cheap three Android phone and top up by 20 quid and tether.

    Now would do that do ya?


  • Options
    #393
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Ballso wrote: »
    It takes my company a week to onboard a new employee ffs (they still manage to **** up basic IT Operations), you think they are going to set up a covert operations team to develop solutions which penetrate all the employees devices connected to their home network!

    Just keep a second set of airgapped devices if you are so paranoid. The good news is as we are all too be made contractors according you we can offset the cost from our tax bill.
    Does the average worker know how to secure their home network like this? No. Most, nearly all employees, will have their home networks wide open.

    You do realize how insecure all IoT devices are, right? That just by googling their MAC address, or simply accessing their web interface, or doing a basic port scan - you can access pretty much all of them trivially? You hand your employer the ability to access all of that, by letting them on your home network - they just need to do a fairly basic/common scan of your network, and a minute amount of Googling of device info, to access most of that.

    People with more nefarious intent, can get basic tools to access your other computing devices on the network (paid for potentially) - or even just access all of the file shares people probably have open without any password, if they use that across their network etc. etc..

    It's a security nightmare to let your employers/managers have access to your home network like that - it is guaranteed to be abused - the thread already has had examples of many people routinely getting fired for such abuses...


  • Options
    #394
    Ballso
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Ballso


    Rodney Bathgate wrote: »
    Seriously? Cop on. You made a statement that was clearly inaccurate and aren’t man enough to admit it? FFS. You are like a child.

    I was sharing my experience you thick c unt


  • Options
    #395
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    snoopboggybog wrote: »
    Of course employers have tracking on their own laptops, there generally part of a domain ffs and provide the encryption for it and track it along with tons of other area's.

    If your really this paranoid about a company accessing your network here's what you do:

    Buy a cheap second hand i5 desktop for 150 quid.
    Buy a cheap three Android phone and top up by 20 quid and tether.

    Now would do that do ya?
    Who's going to do this? People have their own home internet connection - they shouldn't use it for anything other than work, then? (Since their employer can trivially spy on them over the home network)

    That's completely stupid. Employers need to stay the fuck off of peoples WFH devices. They must not have any invasive monitoring. The employee needs to be in 100% control of it all. It's their home network - it's their privacy at risk - they need to protect that.


  • Options
    #396
    Rodney Bathgate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,445 ✭✭✭Rodney Bathgate


    Ballso wrote: »
    I was sharing my experience you thick c unt

    Touched a nerve there I see.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    snoopboggybog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 454 ✭✭snoopboggybog


    KyussB wrote: »
    Does the average worker know how to secure their home network like this? No. Most, nearly all employees, will have their home networks wide open.

    You do realize how insecure all IoT devices are, right? That just by googling their MAC address, or simply accessing their web interface, or doing a basic port scan - you can access pretty much all of them trivially? You hand your employer the ability to access all of that, by letting them on your home network - they just need to do a fairly basic/common scan of your network, and a minute amount of Googling of device info, to access most of that.

    People with more nefarious intent, can get basic tools to access your other computing devices on the network (paid for potentially) - or even just access all of the file shares people probably have open without any password, if they use that across their network etc. etc..

    It's a security nightmare to let your employers/managers have access to your home network like that - it is guaranteed to be abused - the thread already has had examples of many people routinely getting fired for such abuses...

    You do realize that any decent company has full access to your work laptop along with your browsing history don't you? Your browsing is all logged as well your public IP.


  • Options
    #398
    Ballso
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Ballso


    KyussB wrote: »
    Who's going to do this? People have their own home internet connection - they shouldn't use it for anything other than work, then? (Since their employer can trivially spy on them over the home network)

    That's completely stupid. Employers need to stay the fuck off of peoples WFH devices. They must not have any invasive monitoring. The employee needs to be in 100% control of it all. It's their home network - it's their privacy at risk - they need to protect that.

    You've been given s simple solution to the ridiculous tinfoil hat scenario you've invented where our employers are going to maliciously and illegally penetrate devices on our home networks - simply maintain separate devices. If you believed this was true you would be insane to allow such a device onto your network.

    Btw, are you a developer?


  • Options
    #399
    El Tarangu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭El Tarangu


    PirateShampoo wrote: »
    Of course it is, people are ignoring the fact there is a whole economy of people who lose out if WFH becomes the norm. From the bus driver to the coffee shop and the cleaners who clean your building.

    This money won't just disappear into the ether - for example, instead of going to the coffee shop near the office, someone might go to the coffee place near their house instead (maybe feel more of a push to do so, given that they won't see anyone all day otherwise). Instead of coming home wrecked after spending an hour on the bus and not wanting to do anything, they can be at the golf course at 5:40 after closing the laptop at 5:30 - I'm sure capitalism will find a way on induce people to spend their money on things, it always does.

    Jim2007 wrote: »
    It’s an economic arrangement, I’m not there to socialize or be popular, I’m there to do a job and get well paid for doing it.

    I always find this attitude quite odd - many of my colleagues are of a similar age or background; it would be strange not to form some sort of positive bonds with the people you see as much on weekdays as you would your spouse over the course of several years.

    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Some employers are requesting to put tools on your personal devices to ensure that they are not used for work.

    Some want to put cctv into your working area.

    Etc.

    I'm not saying this that this has never, ever happened, but you do really do come up with some extreme examples that are really far from what most people working in the average office job will come up against.


  • Options
    #400
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    snoopboggybog wrote: »
    You do realize that any decent company has full access to your work laptop along with your browsing history don't you?
    If I'm using a mixed personal device as a work laptop - which, as a contractor, I would be... - then I'd be incredibly pissed off at the privacy invasion, if those I contract with attempted that - and I think anyone else would be, too.

    So no, that is not the norm at all - not in the way you're trying to make it out to be, by extending a known workplace-only situation, to peoples homes and personal lives...


  • Options
    #401
    KyussB
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭KyussB


    Ballso wrote: »
    You've been given s simple solution to the ridiculous tinfoil hat scenario you've invented where our employers are going to maliciously and illegally penetrate devices on our home networks - simply maintain separate devices. If you believed this was true you would be insane to allow such a device onto your network.

    Btw, are you a developer?
    So everyone working from home should use their phone, and pay extortionate data charges (that e.g. Netflix will use up almost instantly), instead of using their home network connection - because you want employers to be able to have wide open access to their home network?

    There is nothing workable in that 'solution'. I am, yes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Ballso wrote: »
    I was sharing my experience you thick c unt

    dont post in this thread again


  • Options
    #403
    Ballso
    Registered Users Posts: 465 ✭✭Ballso


    Stheno wrote: »
    dont post in this thread again

    Sorry teacher, it's not my fault he's a thick c unt


  • Options
    #404
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Ballso wrote: »
    Sorry teacher, it's not my fault he's a thick c unt

    3 day ban


  • Options
    #405
    Biker79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭Biker79


    KyussB wrote: »
    Citrix is not what's being discussed - employers want tracking software on peoples WFH equipment, and in many cases personal equipment - cloud hosted workspaces are a related issue, but not with the same level of personal invasiveness.

    If you think monitoring tools are about spying on employees, you're wrong.

    Why would they do that? There is no motive.

    There is a motive to ensure assets (data) is secure, and in the event of an incident, they can respond quickly to ensure they are not put out of business by a fine from the regulator.


  • Options
    #406
    TheIrishGrover
    Registered Users Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    KyussB wrote: »
    I work specifically with networking programming and security - I know my stuff fairly well, thanks.....
    This is simply untrue. Simple as. And pretending to be knowledgeable in a field that you know nothing about negates all your (seriously ill-informed) points.

    Leaving Citrix aside.... (Cloud-based? That alone was enough of a give-away. Citrix tends to be on-prem. If you cannot differentiate between remote connection and cloud-based VPCs then I do not know what you are doing in your job as "Work[ing] specifically with networking programming and security")

    So sticking with VPN connections: Assuming that a remote worker's internal network is using RFC1918 (Guaranteed) and a company is also using RFC1918. Typically an end user would initiate trafficto corporate site and get their internal IP addressing NATted behind a single specifically-allocated RFC1918 IP address. How then does the company isolate its own internal RFC1918 IP address pool from the remote RFC1918 pool? You cannot initiate traffic to a one-to-many PAT and specify the translated destination.

    Extreme examples: Maybe they are using Policy-Based IPSec VPN connections. Again, you need to isolate remote and local address pools simply to allow the traffic so there are no encryption domain overlaps. As you must know, Encryption Domain overlaps result in packets being dropped and not allowed over the tunnel. Again, NAT required.

    Route-Based VPN? Same issues.

    So everyone is entitled to their POV but you should not pretend to be knowledgeable in a field in order to spread misinformation. I do not know what your agenda is other than scaring people with "insider information". Even if your inaccurate comments above were accurate (They are not - any manager with a little knowledge can penetrate and sweep your entire network... Really?) as other have said, WHY?


  • Options
    #407
    Mrs OBumble
    Registered Users Posts: 25,722 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Biker79 wrote: »
    If you think monitoring tools are about spying on employees, you're wrong.

    Why would they do that? There is no motive.

    There is a motive to ensure assets (data) is secure, and in the event of an incident, they can respond quickly to ensure they are not put out of business by a fine from the regulator.

    I had a conversation just yesterday with a manager who is concerned about how he knows his employees are working when they should be working.

    In this case, I was able to suggest using an existing call tracking tool, but sooner or later he will get to thinking "how do I know it was Fred, not just someone logged in as him, who placed those calls".


  • Options
    #408
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,506 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    I had a conversation just yesterday with a manager who is concerned about how he knows his employees are working when they should be working.

    In this case, I was able to suggest using an existing call tracking tool, but sooner or later he will get to thinging "how do I know it was Fred, not just someone logged in as him, who placed those calls".
    If you treat your employees as children this is the type of thing to do.
    People generally leave those jobs though, so there will be a high rate of attrition which brings with it cost.
    That person should not be a manager.


  • Options
    #409
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    I know some companies that want to put key loggers on peoples equipment who are working from home.


  • Options
    #410
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,850 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    ELM327 wrote: »
    If you treat your employees as children this is the type of thing to do.
    People generally leave those jobs though, so there will be a high rate of attrition which brings with it cost.
    That person should not be a manager.

    Nobody in their right mind would allow a call tracking tool to be used by their employer on their personal home phone... the very suggestion would be enough for me to say goodbye and fûck ya..


  • Options
    #411
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 21,506 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    You shouldnt (BAU) be using a personal device for work.
    There's a bit of leeway during covid but outside of pandemic times if you wfh you do so on a secure device supplied by your company


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    I had a conversation just yesterday with a manager who is concerned about how he knows his employees are working when they should be working. ...............

    Appropriate workloads and tracking progress should tell him all he needs to know.
    Sounds like a beancounter in a p1ss hole.


  • Options
    #413
    Vetch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 422 ✭✭Vetch


    Mrs OBumble wrote: »
    Some employers are requesting to put tools on your personal devices to ensure that they are not used for work.

    Some want to put cctv into your working area.

    Etc.

    And provided you consent, it's not a GDPR issue.

    There is a big GDPR issue with employers using the consent basis to process employee data. One of the conditions of consent is free choice. This is problematic in an employment situation where employees may feel pressured into consenting. If pressure or the perception of it exists, the consent conditions won't be met. All of the advice suggests that employers should use legal bases other than consent.


  • Options
    #414
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,850 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Augeo wrote: »
    Appropriate workloads and tracking progress should tell him all he needs to know.
    Sounds like a beancounter in a p1ss hole.

    He sounds like a grade A pisshole himself.

    When the work is assigned to people his only concerns should be that it’s completed accurately and in a timely fashion.

    If I’m an employer and i today assign an employee ...

    - online training class ( 2 hours long approximately )

    - three training reports ( 3 hours long approximately )

    - webinar call with myself and teammates ( 1 hour )

    - sundry tasks, e-mail etc ( 1 hour )

    7 hours work, one hour for lunch, that’s their 8 hour day. I’m not going to try nor would I be able to micromanage every minute of their day. An email when they clock in, same when they take lunch, when they return and a quick 2 minute phone call at 5 pm as they log off to recap the day... simple. You are dealing with professional adults.


  • Options
    #415
    uli84
    Registered Users Posts: 1,673 ✭✭✭uli84


    Highly doubt anyone is as productive working from home as they are in the office, unless single and living on their own.


  • Options
    #416
    Strumms
    Registered Users Posts: 24,850 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    uli84 wrote: »
    Highly doubt anyone is as productive working from home as they are in the office, unless single and living on their own.

    Easier certainly for the singletons or those in an apartment and a house share.....It’s very possible that if it’s somebody with young kids especially or teenagers to a point that their might be distractions but I think it has to be communicated from the outset by them and partners that Dad / Mam really need space and no distractions.

    I’ve said it before though in the work and jobs forum.. people who smoke will be far far more productive now, the 20 minute round trip every 90 minutes or even every hour with some to the coffee machine and then the side door and back is a thing of the past so that’s time back.


  • Options
    #417
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,728 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    uli84 wrote: »
    Highly doubt anyone is as productive working from home as they are in the office, unless single and living on their own.

    Childcare is muddying the waters ........... longterm wfh with kids in the working area is a non runner for most people.


  • Options
    #418
    Technocentral
    Registered Users Posts: 6,101 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    uli84 wrote: »
    Highly doubt anyone is as productive working from home as they are in the office, unless single and living on their own.

    Don't forget, you can also be more productive because you don't have idiots in the office distracting you with talk about Love Island, sports , gossip and other such crap.


  • Options
    #419
    JimmyVik
    Registered Users Posts: 5,368 ✭✭✭JimmyVik


    uli84 wrote: »
    Highly doubt anyone is as productive working from home as they are in the office, unless single and living on their own.


    Dont say that. You arent supposed to ever admit that. :)
    Reminds me of someone I used to share an office with, just myself and himself.
    He would spent half the day gossiping on the phone.
    Everytime he left the office he would grab a few random paper sheets or a notebook to bring with him. People outside would say to him "how are things Peter". "Im so busy, havent got a minute. Must fly" . And he only going to the jacks.


    The unwritten rule is you always say you are more productive when working from home. Even if you arent. And when someone else says people working from home arent as productive, you shut them down immediately, lest others find out the secret :)

    "The more time you spend convincing others how hard you are working, the less you really actually believe it yourself." - My Granny.


  • Options
    #420
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,088 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Biker79 wrote: »
    I can give you 2 examples that I'm directly familiar with - Vodafone and Microsoft in Sandyford. Between 50 and 65% of staff in both those operations are external service providers.

    The rest are permanent staff who are close to the business revenue stream - mostly senior management/ sales and marketing...some engineering.

    I've heard of 70% in some large multi-nationals - Facebook/ Google

    Lots of companies use contractors to allow for the rise and fall of demand, I wouldnt at all equate that with either a robot or a lad in India taking your job.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    Biker79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭Biker79


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Lots of companies use contractors to allow for the rise and fall of demand, I wouldnt at all equate that with either a robot or a lad in India taking your job.

    Probably not related to this thread, but I would say contractors and outsourced workers are more vulnerable to automation and less favourable WFH conditions.

    Unless the government steps up with robust legislation to support WFH, which it will probably do soon, as so many workers are impacted.


Advertisement