6 ms·

Surely you'd also have to ban phones and other devices with microphones? All these devices can trivially be set up to record, so if your goal is full security,

Surely you'd also have to ban phones and other devices with microphones? All these devices can trivially be set up to record, so if your goal is full security, you should be a no phones workplace.

chrisjj 6d ago
My device has no microphone. Promise. How would you verify?
- tencentshill 6d ago
  Some services offer modified devices without a camera or mic for high-security environments. https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-why-nuclear-plants-pay-extra-for-it https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-w... I imagine this is why Apple has kept the mic array and camera as separate removeable components in their devices when pretty much everything else is integrated.
  - chrisjj 6d ago
    I have not readded those components. Promise. How would you verify?
    - iamnothere 6d ago
      If it’s an Apple device, it’s pretty easy to verify, if you’re not getting into the realm of spycraft. Open the stock recording app from the store and try to record after verifying the preferences allow recording. This is sufficient for catching bad actors who don’t have immense resources behind them. Even easier if it’s a managed device. If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period, metal detectors and patdowns on both entry and exit.
      - chrisjj 6d ago
        So to enforce "to ban phones and other devices with microphones" you'd require the user hand over this phone and you grant access to operate it. I can imagine difficulties. > If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period Well the problem with that is it would bar required phones and other devices.
        iamnothere 6d ago
        Many workplaces already require MDM for devices. Some don’t allow unmanaged onsite devices at all. It just depends on the sensitivity of the work. Maybe you haven’t been onsite at a defense contractor or a large financial firm, it can get very restrictive and you basically sign over a lot of your rights to work there. > Well the problem with that is it would bar required phones and other devices. That’s the point. Nothing goes in or out except through tightly controlled channels. SCIFs aren’t theoretical, they are in frequent use especially for anyone touching classified info. Large enterprises sometimes use similar facilities as needed for highly sensitive meetings where they can’t afford for anything to be leaked.
        chrisjj 6d ago
        Sure, but we're discussing "the office". I can imagine this ban workplaces that aren't highly security concious.
        iamnothere 6d ago
        I imagine that some workplaces will have to become more security conscious, and others (in two-party states) will have to make it clear to employees that recording without permission from others is illegal and the company will both sue and file charges.
- r3trohack3r 6d ago
  It’s the other way around - for secure environments there is an approved device list. If your device is not on that list, it does not go in. There is also an approved human list. And the approved humans carry responsibility and consequence when going into the space.
  - chrisjj 6d ago
    My device is listed model XYZ. Promise. How would you verify?
    - tavavex 6d ago
      Look at it. This is the part where you repeat the same comment and substitute in modifying the software, opening the device and putting in listening hardware, putting a microphone under your skin, attaching a microcontroller to their outside walls to analyze vibration patterns, etc. Luckily, the world doesn't operate on pedantry. They care about removing 99% of attack vectors, the remaining 1% is covered by you being on the line. If your office permits outside recording hardware, someone 'forgetting' that their device was recording is a mishap. But if it only approves certain devices and finds out you did James Bond-level gadgetry to circumvent their measures, guess what image that'll paint on you.
      - chrisjj 6d ago
        > But if it only approves certain devices and finds out I was thinking more of the cases it doesn't find out. 1% fail can be quite a lot.
sdcfgy 6d ago
Already do that in some situations.
- grey-area 6d ago
  The watches have had a microphone for ages haven’t they? Why does this feature change things? Unless it can’t be turned off?
  - sdcfgy 6d ago
    Yeah but it's pretty obvious when someone has one recording. Now it's not. And it's impossible to tell which version of the watch people have.
voakbasda 6d ago
Given how much people tend to get distracted by their phones, I am surprised most workplaces do not have a phone ban.

Surely you'd also have to ban phones and other devices with microphones? All these devices can trivially be set up to record, so if your goal is full security, you should be a no phones workplace.

chrisjj 6d ago

My device has no microphone. Promise. How would you verify?

tencentshill 6d ago
Some services offer modified devices without a camera or mic for high-security environments. https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-why-nuclear-plants-pay-extra-for-it https://www.gadgetreview.com/the-iphone-with-no-camera-and-w... I imagine this is why Apple has kept the mic array and camera as separate removeable components in their devices when pretty much everything else is integrated.
- chrisjj 6d ago
  I have not readded those components. Promise. How would you verify?
  - iamnothere 6d ago
    If it’s an Apple device, it’s pretty easy to verify, if you’re not getting into the realm of spycraft. Open the stock recording app from the store and try to record after verifying the preferences allow recording. This is sufficient for catching bad actors who don’t have immense resources behind them. Even easier if it’s a managed device. If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period, metal detectors and patdowns on both entry and exit.
    - chrisjj 6d ago
      So to enforce "to ban phones and other devices with microphones" you'd require the user hand over this phone and you grant access to operate it. I can imagine difficulties. > If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period Well the problem with that is it would bar required phones and other devices.
      - iamnothere 6d ago
        Many workplaces already require MDM for devices. Some don’t allow unmanaged onsite devices at all. It just depends on the sensitivity of the work. Maybe you haven’t been onsite at a defense contractor or a large financial firm, it can get very restrictive and you basically sign over a lot of your rights to work there. > Well the problem with that is it would bar required phones and other devices. That’s the point. Nothing goes in or out except through tightly controlled channels. SCIFs aren’t theoretical, they are in frequent use especially for anyone touching classified info. Large enterprises sometimes use similar facilities as needed for highly sensitive meetings where they can’t afford for anything to be leaked.
        chrisjj 6d ago
        Sure, but we're discussing "the office". I can imagine this ban workplaces that aren't highly security concious.
        iamnothere 6d ago
        I imagine that some workplaces will have to become more security conscious, and others (in two-party states) will have to make it clear to employees that recording without permission from others is illegal and the company will both sue and file charges.
r3trohack3r 6d ago
It’s the other way around - for secure environments there is an approved device list. If your device is not on that list, it does not go in. There is also an approved human list. And the approved humans carry responsibility and consequence when going into the space.
- chrisjj 6d ago
  My device is listed model XYZ. Promise. How would you verify?
  - tavavex 6d ago
    Look at it. This is the part where you repeat the same comment and substitute in modifying the software, opening the device and putting in listening hardware, putting a microphone under your skin, attaching a microcontroller to their outside walls to analyze vibration patterns, etc. Luckily, the world doesn't operate on pedantry. They care about removing 99% of attack vectors, the remaining 1% is covered by you being on the line. If your office permits outside recording hardware, someone 'forgetting' that their device was recording is a mishap. But if it only approves certain devices and finds out you did James Bond-level gadgetry to circumvent their measures, guess what image that'll paint on you.
    - chrisjj 6d ago
      > But if it only approves certain devices and finds out I was thinking more of the cases it doesn't find out. 1% fail can be quite a lot.

sdcfgy 6d ago

Already do that in some situations.

grey-area 6d ago
The watches have had a microphone for ages haven’t they? Why does this feature change things? Unless it can’t be turned off?
- sdcfgy 6d ago
  Yeah but it's pretty obvious when someone has one recording. Now it's not. And it's impossible to tell which version of the watch people have.

voakbasda 6d ago

Given how much people tend to get distracted by their phones, I am surprised most workplaces do not have a phone ban.