Timeline for Standards for how developers work on their own workstations
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 13, 2011 at 15:40 | vote | accept | Jon Hopkins | ||
| Jan 11, 2011 at 18:26 | answer | added | Thomas Langston | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 17:06 | answer | added | user1249 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 16:35 | comment | added | Jon Hopkins | @Konrad - It's sort of an aside to the question but my view would be that going Gestapo is the right of the company but one it should invoke only as a last resource and should do so understanding that there are likely to be significant ramifications in doing so. My understanding is that the legal position is usually (dependent on country), if it's their kit, they're allowed to do so, so long as it's for a genuine business reason and not just for snooping. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 16:32 | comment | added | Jon Hopkins | @Ben - Because he was going from memory and there were 10 or 12 workspaces containing duplicates of a single project. But the question asks that the assumption be made that he wouldn't be contactable in any case as that's more likely to be the case. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 16:29 | answer | added | Spedge | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 16:22 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Gary: well, for one thing, installing a logging software is usually illegal under German law. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 15:55 | comment | added | Gary | @Konrad I'm pretty sure that all corporate environments permit a root user (or domain admin) access to their networked machines. Bang goes your privacy in terms of secrecy and rifling through your stuff. Of course, how a company acts on that information is subject to privacy laws (they can't legally reveal your Facebook password for example). There is no real way to mitigate this since they can install any logging software they like as part of a corporate security policy. Again: you want privacy, use your own hardware. And don't store your private keys on their machines. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 15:16 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @Gary: what? no, that’s complete (and very dangerous) nonsense. It’s a looong shot (both logically and legally) from working for a company to giving up personal rights for privacy. I wouldn’t call Jon’s action “going Gestapo” (even before he explained it more) but companies do go Gestapo sometimes and this is something that needs to be prevented and fought on all levels. I can only speak for Germany but here you do have certain privacy rights even when working on company-owned hardware. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 15:08 | answer | added | Craige | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 14:34 | comment | added | Ben L | If the developer could be contacted for the password, why didn't you just ask him which version was the current one? | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:34 | comment | added | Gary | +1 for an excellent question. "Going gestapo" is not relevant in a corporate environment in my opinion since developers are working for the corporation and therefore relinquish access rights to their local machines. You want privacy, use your own hardware. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:31 | comment | added | Jon Hopkins | @Geoffrey - If that were true, the -1 might be fair (it actually wouldn't as the question is about how to avoid doing what you describe as "going Gestapo" therefore is surely a good question about how to avoid a bad situation). As it was it was two developers working together to address a situation they had come across, coming up with an approach they were happy with no direction or other input from management as to go about it so, with all due respect, you're just demonstrating Godwin's law. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:29 | comment | added | JeffO | Is this why daily builds are recommended? May give a reason to check in more often? | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:20 | comment | added | Jon Hopkins | @TheLQ - The first developer told him then changed it when he got back. We're a small company and there's a good level of trust that this sort of thing won't be abused. This is incidentally something that the developers did / decided between themselves rather than something management forced on them. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:14 | answer | added | Dan Ray | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:11 | comment | added | TheLQ | Wait, how did the second developer know the first developer's password? | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 13:10 | comment | added | Geoffrey | -1 for going Gestapo on a programmer's command center. | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 11:48 | history | edited | Jon Hopkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 | added 376 characters in body; added 7 characters in body |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 11:32 | answer | added | Bobby Tables | timeline score: 69 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 11:22 | answer | added | user2567 | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 11:14 | answer | added | Kris | timeline score: 21 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 11:02 | answer | added | user8685 | timeline score: 6 | |
| Jan 11, 2011 at 10:42 | history | asked | Jon Hopkins | CC BY-SA 2.5 |