Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...
-
The TL;DR is: Glassdoor now requires your real name and will add it to older accounts without your consent if they learn it, and your only option is to delete your account. They do not care that this puts people at risk with their employers. They do not care that this seems to run counter to their own data-privacy policies.
-
@PJH that doesn’t entirely seem legal under the GDPR?
-
@Arantor From my admittedly limited understanding of the details(1) of GDPR, it's not even close to legal.
(1) Specifically the part about not putting "give us consent or don't use our service" rules in place...
-
@Steve_The_Cynic As the local (at my work) unwilling expert on GDPR, let's see:
(32) Consent should be given by a clear affirmative act establishing a freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous indication of the data subject's agreement to the processing of personal data relating to him or her, such as by a written statement, including by electronic means, or an oral statement.
(42) Where processing is based on the data subject's consent, the controller should be able to demonstrate that the data subject has given consent to the processing operation. In particular in the context of a written declaration on another matter, safeguards should ensure that the data subject is aware of the fact that and the extent to which consent is given.
(50) The processing of personal data for purposes other than those for which the personal data were initially collected should be allowed only where the processing is compatible with the purposes for which the personal data were initially collected. In such a case, no legal basis separate from that which allowed the collection of the personal data is required.
I say: very not legal.
-
@Atazhaia said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
I say: very not legal.
And I agree.
-
Glassdoor appears to be blaming this on their acquisition of a company called Fishbowl.
... in 2021, Glassdoor acquired Fishbowl, a professional networking app that was integrated with Glassdoor last July. This acquisition meant that every Glassdoor user was automatically signed up for a Fishbowl account. And because Fishbowl requires users to verify their identities, Glassdoor's terms of service changed to require all users to be verified.
Of course, this is all bullshit. Just because Fishbowl required identity verification doesn't mean that Glassdoor can't continue allowing users to be anonymous. Seems like
on the part of Glassdoor.
-
@Gern_Blaanston I'm tempted to cite this Glassdoor stuff as a counter-example to Hanlon's razor (i.e. that even if X should not be ascribed to malice, it shouldn't be ascribed to stupidity/indifference either). Glassdoor could very easily be operating on the basis that it has something to gain by forcing Glassdoor profiles to follow the Fishbowl rules about verification, and so the unnecessary step of autocreating the Fishbowl profile is a positive for them. Ergo they do it. It isn't really malice, but it isn't indifference or stupidity either.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I'm happy that I've never used Glassdoor, and now I certainly never will.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic hmm. Let’s suppose that’s the case.
On the one hand, simplifying your systems to have equivalent processes is usually a practical and good idea. Saves money and time and all that. Not stupid, not malicious. At least at first.
However, the consequences of that decision… that’s where I tend to wonder. Surely someone thought about the consequences of this decision.
Failure to anticipate the GDPR ramifications of connecting data just because you now can, someone failed to do the math on liability vs convenience costs. Incompetence ✅
One also considers that they probably should have worked out that if people are now more likely to be identifiable in the platform than before, that this will increase the odds of bad things happening to whistleblowers. Incompetence ✅ (it is possible that they won’t make that information available more than before but I wouldn’t bet on it)
TFA cites an employee at Glassdoor’s concern over “you have PII, it is now connected to lots of very interesting real world data that it was not before, congrats you just out a target on your back”. Anyone with a data protection or info sec background would have been able to point this out. Incompetence ✅
Basically the primary decision appears to be made, superficially, sensibly. But the second order effects blow any thinking of their competence out of the water. It’s not in any way that I can see intentionally malicious, it’s just so utterly and completely not thought through.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
@Atazhaia said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
I say: very not legal.
And I agree.
And I'd add it is also An Asshole Move, as we say in technical jargon.
-
-
@Gern_Blaanston said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
Glassdoor acquired Fishbowl
But if you put a glass door in a fishbowl, won’t the water run out when the door opens?
Heh, I think I inadvertently stumbled on a good metaphor for what’s going on there while trying to make a poor joke.
-
@Gurth said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
trying to make a poor joke
You succeeded.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I think it's more of an example of how Hanlon's Razor sometimes seems to conflict with Occam's Razor, in that the simplest explanation is how they know all too well that they can make money from forcing people to do shit.
It could be argued as systemic malice. They totally have a choice, and they choose money, and they've got us all believing that's "common sense", which also makes it incompetence. It's still the simplest explanation, though.
Maybe what we need is some kind of order of operations around philosophical razors. There are about nine of them, after all.
-
@Shoreline said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
@Steve_The_Cynic I think it's more of an example of how Hanlon's Razor sometimes seems to conflict with Occam's Razor, in that the simplest explanation is how they know all too well that they can make money from forcing people to do shit.
It could be argued as systemic malice. They totally have a choice, and they choose money, and they've got us all believing that's "common sense", which also makes it incompetence. It's still the simplest explanation, though.
Maybe what we need is some kind of order of operations around philosophical razors. There are about nine of them, after all.
As long as it doesn’t expect us to excuse some crazy uncle Ivan. Sally has already gotten away with too much over the years.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic I’m convinced that when it comes to privacy/tracking/surveillance, or basically anything Big Tech, that the reverse should be applied:
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice.
-
@topspin said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by
malicegetting more
.Malice would imply a desire to cause harm. They don't care about causing harm, they care about increasing short-term profits.
-
-
@topspin Disagree. Specifically, this is why Hanlon's Razor cannot be applied to this situation.
-
@ixvedeusi malice is, with very rare exceptions, never the motivator. It’s still about intentionally doing the illegal/immoral/evil/whatever thing for profit.
Seems like an irrelevant distinction. The point is intent vs. ignorance, not greed vs. wanting to see the world burn.
-
@topspin said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
malice is, with very rare exceptions, never the motivator.
This is exactly what Hanlon's Razor means. Thus it doesn't apply here. As I said.
E: For what it's worth, Wikipedia seems to broadly agree with this interpretation (see in particular the "Other variations of the idea").
-
@ixvedeusi Which comes back to what I said, that it's mostly indifference.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic Hmm. No, in fact that's not what I said. Ignore me.
-
@Steve_The_Cynic said in Glassdoor to un-anonymise accounts (at least internally) if they can...:
Ignore me.
Absolutely!
