←back to thread

310 points speckx | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.461s | source | bottom
1. sombragris ◴[] No.45038343[source]
I wonder what would lawyers and doctors writing very sensitive, liability-ridden info would have to say about this move.
replies(6): >>45038439 #>>45039217 #>>45039420 #>>45039774 #>>45041516 #>>45042371 #
2. ◴[] No.45038439[source]
3. IAmBroom ◴[] No.45039217[source]
They wouldn't say a damn thing. It's IT, not law/billing nor medicine/insurance.

Bright as some of them are, it's not their silo.

replies(1): >>45039399 #
4. account42 ◴[] No.45039399[source]
That's not how liability works.
5. deepsquirrelnet ◴[] No.45039420[source]
Or how about the DoD?[1]

[1]https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-china-defense-d...

> Microsoft Failed to Disclose Key Details About Use of China-Based Engineers in U.S. Defense Work, Record Shows

6. AnimalMuppet ◴[] No.45039774[source]
Not just them. Any business that has things that are considered "company confidential" (isn't that all of them?) should be concerned.
7. aerostable_slug ◴[] No.45041516[source]
Or those working on export controlled content. ITAR is everywhere these days, and it would be un-fun to experience a deemed export of technical data because an engineer didn't watch where their document went and the data center has non-US-persons working in it.
8. Havoc ◴[] No.45042371[source]
Guessing it'll be enabled for enterprise copies / machines connected to AD