Note: article puts a rectangle in front of the article when you’ve read half of it.
Layoffs are always, always, always a sign of an unhealthy company, regardless of how Wall Steet reacts.
15 years with geek squad and you’re not wrong, I got caught up in these layoffs and thought I’m stressed the high hell, I’m not surprised. There wasn’t work to do, I was struggling to barely get 30 hours.
They recently changed there subscription modle and people stopped scheduling on site jobs.
Without having looked at any of the subscription changes, my guess is they increased subscription costs with minimal if any increases in offered services. Is that correct?
Or layoffs mean some exec wants to save money by outsourcing so he can get a bonus
FBI offered to Geek Squad a bounty on incriminating evidence found on long-term storage of computers they serviced and a lot of GS techs made those reports.
That is to say GS had no concern for privacy or fourth amendment protections during the era of rising surveillance awareness.
So I don’t care if they never wake up.
I knew a guy who made one of those reports. It was CP.
You seem kind of upset about people being caught for this. Am I misreading you?
Are you thinking of this instance? It’s an instance that could happen to any of us. The CSAM in question was found (and only found) in garbage data in unused storage. And it means our GS tech had actively scan (go out of his way), rather than just fix the machine.
It also means it’s inconclusive, since that kind of stuff can end up in your webcache through malware vectored through advertising. CSAM is weaponized in malware. Heck, there are CSAM images in the Bitcoin blockchain file (or were, if they found a way to scour them). Not that innocent websurfers have not been falsely convicted due to invisible crap in their cleared webcache, but we should know better by now.
It does raise a question about what you believe regarding the limits of our civil rights. Do you believe evidence illegally obtained by law enforcement should be wholly admissible if the crime is heinous enough? SCOTUS does, and ruled that even drug possession discovered during an illegal search should be admissible. But that pretty much means you and I cannot rely on constitutional protections from unreasonable search and seizure.
Here in the States, preserving our protections and our privacy sometimes means defending the worst people. See, it’s supposed to be a penalty against the state for poorly executing the law when someone can’t be convicted due to inadmissible evidence. If a guilty citizen is improperly treated by law enforcement (according to the legal theory that supposed Blackstone’s ratio) then they should be acquitted, and the public has only the incompetence of state actors to blame.
Law enforcement is supposed to respect your protections, and if we let them conduct illegal searches (such as buying data from brokers, or using IMSI spoofers without a warrant, or asking Google for everyone within a mile and an hour of a criminal incident) then they’re going conduct those same illegal searches when you’re working with your mutual aid organization or are protesting against injustice. If serial killers and child molesters aren’t protected from overpolicing, then you aren’t either, and if you happen to be nonwhite, LGBT+ or part of another marginalized group (Juggalos!) then you’re in far more danger of illegal searches, false convictions and prison time, assuming you’re just not the victim of an officer-involved homicide.
If you live in the US, it’s very difficult not to commit crimes, particularly federal felonies. There but for your privacy (and / or the grace of prosecutorial discretion) goes your freedom and reputation.
That said, the FBI has been super sloppy in its pursuit to hunt down CSAM traders, even letting their high-end malware leak into the public to be dissected and used by black-hats, and interests of rival nations.
No, that’s not the case I mean. I mean I personally worked at Best Buy and knew a person who worked GS who made a report to the FBI. I don’t know the outcome of that report or even if it lead to any kind of prosecution.
It does raise a question about what you believe regarding the limits of our civil rights. Do you believe evidence illegally obtained by law enforcement should be wholly admissible if the crime is heinous enough?
Reporting a crime you observed first-hand is not an encroachment on anyone’s civil rights. Is that what you meant to say here? If it is, I wholeheartedly disagree.
I remember recent discussions on Mastodon I was half following where admins of certain instances where posting directions on how to make FBI reports if/when they find users posting things like CP. Are those admins encroaching on their users 4th amendment rights by reporting a crime? I think not.
With that said, I think there is a line between reporting a crime you happen across and a systematized search of user’s private files encouraged and paid for by government entities.
From your link,
Riddet says agents conducted two additional searches of the computer without obtaining necessary warrants, lied to trick a federal magistrate judge into authorizing a search warrant, then tried to cover up their misdeeds by initially hiding records.
For the record, THAT is a problem, in my eyes and not what my original comment was about.
Hey man, you’re kinda narrowing down the entire problem of the right to privacy being consistently shat upon by your government into “well I knew one person where it was justified so this means those who argue against it fuck kids”
I understand what you mean and if you want to carve an exception into the law for CP I’d be all for it - maybe everyone is a mandated reporter of child porn, and all suspicions MUST be reported to the FBI and the evidence handed over. But I don’t wanna get swatted just because my wife and I are into BDSM and we photographed a particularly rough session. Or because I took some pics of some clear plastic bags filled with flour that I put in my trunk to prank a friend. Or a million other things a geek squad guy might misinterpret and call the police for.
That would be inconvenient.
Would you make it to where computer techs wouldn’t be able to report suspected crimes?
Yes, a handful of BestBuy employees accepted payments from the FBI to report on CP found on a customers device. So let’s all feel good about underpaid workers losing their jobs in this economy.
It’s up to you, but over here it looks like an abuse of power and a violation of trust. If they can’t be trusted not to look at the data they’re trying to restore (except directly in the service of restoring it) they they can’t be trusted with a business PC containing accounting data or legal correspondence either.
And a violation of trust in the service of law enforcement is still a violation of trust in the public. Considering how this would poison the service for business clients, I am surprised it doesn’t run contrary to Best Buy terms of employment (outside of mandated reporting, which is why mandated reporting laws exist for some cases).
On the other hand AT&T will gladly spooge your phone call records to the police if they ask for it. (No warrant necessary.) And Amazon’s Ring doorbell videos are sold to law enforcement whenever they want it (without permission of the doorbell owners.) But that’s finally resulted in trouble, and Amazon is rethinking this service.
It is interesting that in this economy which is intentionally managed to create a shortage of jobs and to lower wages, that employees are expected to betray the public trust and even engage in illegal activity at the behest of their employers just to stay employed, and that some of us might find this as an acceptable state of affairs. And yes, when business goes sour for the company, those employees will be discarded with no additional acknowledgment for their loyalty.
It is interesting that in this economy which is intentionally managed to create a shortage of jobs and to lower wages, that employees are expected to betray the public trust and even engage in illegal activity at the behest of their employers just to stay employed, and that some of us might find this as an acceptable state of affairs. And yes, when business goes sour for the company, those employees will be discarded with no additional acknowledgment for their loyalty.
I fully agree with the point you are making here. It’s a fucked up system with a whole mess of badly designed incentives that cause people to be shitty to each other.
My only disagreement is with your willingness to condemn innocent people who lost their jobs over the actions of a few. I worked for GeekSquad, data privacy violations were not only a fireable offense but also something those I worked with prided themselves on protecting. All of my coworkers were privacy advocates and enthusiasts who did not go digging through anyone’s personal data. Rather, oftentimes they would try to help clients be more informed, even risking their own job stability when doing so lost sales.
There are good folks who didn’t deserve to lose their jobs, were not guilty of the actions you are upset over, and don’t deserve people callously implying they deserved it.
It’s up to you, but over here it looks like an abuse of power and a violation of trust. If they can’t be trusted not to look at the data they’re trying to restore (except directly in the service of restoring it) they they can’t be trusted with a business PC containing accounting data or legal correspondence either.
Have you ever done data recovery? Because I have, and part of recovery includes accessing random files to ensure they were restored/recovered correctly. I don’t go digging for incriminating shit, but I do have to make sure the data is readable before I hand it over to the client.
And you can be goddamned sure that if I see CSAM on your machine I’m turning you over to the police and I’ll gladly forego payment to see your ass in bracelets.i have professional ethics, but those don’t include protection of child abusers.
Sometimes not seeing a few images is impossible if you want to be sure the restore or whatever actually worked.
I don’t live there but doesn’t the geek squad fix home PCs and such? Of course they shouldn’t touch business PCs that is ITs job or maybe the MSPs, if your work doesn’t have an IT department.
These geek squad folks go hard with the veiled lay-off references.
Await the signal, friends.
sacrificed a lot of personal time and experiences just to be let go
Corporations have one goal: making money.
Right behind that is self preservation, which is in full service of continuing to make money.
If corporations show that they care about you, it is in service of you making money for them. They do not care about you, they care about money. You have to make an effort to look out for yourself, and for your team mates that you care about. Make sure you and your close team mates are not being overworked, because the company will not do so unless they are forced to or unless they think that doing so will make them more money.
Corporations have one goal: making money.
Right behind that is self preservation, which is in full service of continuing to make money.
That secondary goal is falling far, far behind in importance.
These days most shareholders will insist on a higher payout this quarter, even if it directly threatens the long term viability of the enterprise.
The shareholders are not in it for the long haul, they only want to get in, make a quick buck, and get out as fast as possible before the whole thing collapses.
