Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by jfasi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

jfasi

> users

I'm pretty sure this is aimed at enterprise applications.

View on HN

Forcing your employees to be tracked by Google is even worse. They can hardly opt out.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's illegal in Europe if a company forces this upon its employees.

They're likely already using google apps

You don't get it: this is enterprise software. People would login (and only have access) with their enteprise accounts, not their personal ones.

You're saying that having Google manage the identities will not provide Google with all the data and perhaps even make them trackable by Google? What makes you think so?

Cloud identity doesn't appear to be something that you deploy in your network and that is completely isolated from the Google cloud. Quite the contrary.

Whatever google can or cannot do with the data depends on their ToS but that is a problem for the company that contracts them to deal with as it's their data; not the users.

Most importantly, virtually all PaaS and SaaS solutions (office365 being the most well-known) already operate like that; on-prem services are getting pretty scarce nowadays on the enterprise world.

I think he/she gets it. It is possible to run your enterprise without using Google software that forces users to pour even more of their data into Google's grasp.

So I think the OP was saying that it would be desirable for those enterprises to allow employees an alternative, for those who do not wish to share even more with Google.

Why does it matter whether they want to share their work data with Google? It's their company's decision. Their company owns the data.

I hope you realize the insanity of the following exchange:

"Bob, you should enter your sick leave in Workday."

"But I don't want that company know about my sick days. Can I use something different instead?"

Actually, that example doesn't sound at all insane to me. What if Workday then sells the information that I'm sick a lot to future prospective employers or to health insurers? The employer should have a duty to adequately protect that information. It's not just "their" data.

I don’t know about the US law on confidential employee data, but in some countries selling data like that would be an open and shut lawsuit (against both Google and the employer).

Your example makes my point for me. Thank you.

Here's the rest of the exchange:

"No, you may not. This is the software all employees use."

"But Workday might sell my data!"

"...alright, how about you fill in this Excel sheet."

"No, Microsoft might be spying on me."

"You're fired."

You're confusing different types of data. Data that belongs to the employer, and personal data about the employee which is protected as personal and private as a matter of course, even within the enterprise context.

It's not their data, it's the company's data. They don't have access to the services with their personal accounts, only their corporate ones so any data that they pour in is professional work, which belongs to the company. Why would I possibly care that google is mining my company's AD structure or which documents I access in the corporate network? It's the company's problem.

The company personnel directory is usually considered confidential. Why give it to Google, a company very well equipped to tie those data to personal identities?

> Why give it to Google, a company very well equipped to tie those data to personal identities?

Companies already frequently outsource that list with full personal identities to payroll/benefits providers, among others. Sharing it with someone who might potentially tie it back to personal identity is not, comparatively, a big deal.

This looks like an alternative to the typical Active Directory/Exchange setup that many large corporations run.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com