zlacker

If you live in a third-world country (or the US) which lacks basic functions of society like employee protection, a sensible minimum wage, universal healthcare, paid parental leave, etc., then yes, I don't recommend doing what my friend did with employing a little "civil disobedience" in such cases.

TBH, for most techies I don't think opposition to MITM boxes comes down to "I don't want them to catch me looking at cat photos" but more along the lines of "this will actually reduce security as much as it improves it, and the companies providing these products are also aiding repressive regimes and human rights violations across the globe". Personally, I would find it unethical for the company I work for to buy these products.

>>semi-e+(OP)
What countries can you DoS your employers' network in?

>>semi-e+(OP)
> Personally, I would find it unethical for the company I work for to buy these products.

Then leave the company in protest or convince it not to buy them. DDoSing the company's network is somehow not unethical, I guess?

>>Anderk+Gf
I agree talking to IT is step 1, and I'm assuming that hasn't worked.

Collective action (strikes, "work slowly protests" etc.) as a protest against company policy has a long precedent of a) being protected by law and b) being much more effective than a single employee quitting, while simultaneously reducing the downside for employees (in L_\infty norm).

Edit: the old Keynes quote comes to mind: "if you owe the bank $100 you have a problem, but if you owe the bank $100 million the bank has a problem" -- if 1 of the company's devs commits a "fireable offense", he/she has a problem, but if 100 of them do, the company has a problem.

>>semi-e+6v
However with collective action, the company is usually aware of their employees actions, here if I'm reading correctly management were not notified that this was happening, so perhaps not quote the same thing.