I agree some of the stuff in the Reddit post seems fanciful at best, but my point was that it doesn't take much data to work out things people think are relatively private - and the analysis of more "mundane" stuff can be very powerful. I thought we'd learned that lesson from Snowden but apparently it's easily forgotten. Also worth bearing in mind that just because the company has good intentions, doesn't mean the people with access to these tools and data are going to be honourable all the time - we see that routinely with those in the police, intelligence services, armed forces, etc.
JPM does have regulatory obligations to collect and monitor some data (I work in the financial sector so I'm well aware of this) and I don't think it's fair to single them out here but I do think a debate around whether the privacy protections we have in place for employees are sufficient is warranted. Personally I think it's impossible to stop abuse of this type of data so the right course might well be to simply reconsider the amount of data being collected or retained despite any benefit it might bring.
On the topic of workplace relationships - very few companies have policies which outright ban them - certainly none I've ever worked for. In fact I'm not even sure whether that would be legal in much of the world.
JPM does have regulatory obligations to collect and monitor some data (I work in the financial sector so I'm well aware of this) and I don't think it's fair to single them out here but I do think a debate around whether the privacy protections we have in place for employees are sufficient is warranted. Personally I think it's impossible to stop abuse of this type of data so the right course might well be to simply reconsider the amount of data being collected or retained despite any benefit it might bring.
On the topic of workplace relationships - very few companies have policies which outright ban them - certainly none I've ever worked for. In fact I'm not even sure whether that would be legal in much of the world.