> For example, does Teams really record the actual messages a user posts in a Teams chat?
I’m confused with this question. Why wouldn’t it? It’s not like Teams has (or will have) any kind of end-to-end encryption in place. Teams is a sluggish and monstrous replacement for chat that stores all messages (on Microsoft’s servers if the organization uses Office 365) to synchronize views across devices. The easiest way to achieve such synchronization with history is to store everything on the servers. That also has the potential to make searching faster (though such a potential is squandered in Teams, in my experience).
> The Microsoft spokesperson continued: "We also believe that privacy is a human right, and we're deeply committed to the privacy of every person who uses our products. Only the global administrator has rights to the analytics and reporting experience, which provides insights into the ways in which the organization is using Microsoft Teams, not the message content itself."
IMO, this part is perfect wording in legalese. It doesn’t say that the global administrator does not have access to the message content. It says that the analytics and reporting experience (which the global administrator has access to) provides insight into how Teams is used and that this experience does not provide the message content. There must be another “experience” mode that provides access to all message content from every user in the organization’s scope. After all, every organization has its users emails available to it at any point in time in plain text form (unless the user has encrypted them with specific keys unknown to the organization). Why should chat be considered more private?
> It doesn’t say that the global administrator does not have access to the message content.
Slack also allows administrators to view deleted content, etc.
Slack used to let users see who those admins were in certain places; if that's still true, then finding out who those people are may give insight into who has the ultimate form of political power.
Depends on upstream regulations and other factors. Financial services have a lot of need in this space, for example.
Otherwise it’s a risk consideration like anything else... is the benefit of “knowing” what’s going on more than the liability? Usually managers in bureaucratic institutions want to know as much as they need to, but no more.
It’s also expensive and not worth it unless you’re bundling it in with M365 E1000
It's funny because you were talking like you knew it all, then someone with real world knowledge of Teams gave you info invalidating the key point of your argument and you just shrug it off with more assumptions.
It's the entire Hacker News culture completely and wholly represented in three succinct comments.
I’m confused with this question. Why wouldn’t it? It’s not like Teams has (or will have) any kind of end-to-end encryption in place. Teams is a sluggish and monstrous replacement for chat that stores all messages (on Microsoft’s servers if the organization uses Office 365) to synchronize views across devices. The easiest way to achieve such synchronization with history is to store everything on the servers. That also has the potential to make searching faster (though such a potential is squandered in Teams, in my experience).
> The Microsoft spokesperson continued: "We also believe that privacy is a human right, and we're deeply committed to the privacy of every person who uses our products. Only the global administrator has rights to the analytics and reporting experience, which provides insights into the ways in which the organization is using Microsoft Teams, not the message content itself."
IMO, this part is perfect wording in legalese. It doesn’t say that the global administrator does not have access to the message content. It says that the analytics and reporting experience (which the global administrator has access to) provides insight into how Teams is used and that this experience does not provide the message content. There must be another “experience” mode that provides access to all message content from every user in the organization’s scope. After all, every organization has its users emails available to it at any point in time in plain text form (unless the user has encrypted them with specific keys unknown to the organization). Why should chat be considered more private?