Asklemmy

43908 readers

1311 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

201

Can I refuse MS Authenticator? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

247 comments fedilink hide all child comments

So my company decided to migrate office suite and email etc to Microsoft365. Whatever. But for 2FA login they decided to disable the option to choose "any authenticator" and force Microsoft Authenticator on the (private) phones of both employees and volunteers. Is there any valid reason why they would do this, like it's demonstrably safer? Or is this a battle I can pick to shield myself a little from MS?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 months ago

Are you autistic by any chance ? ... Please go see a therapist, please.

Actually, quite likely on the spectrum and diagnosed with ADHD (this is a major contributor to my verbosity, so apologies if it comes across as a big rant). I do have a therapist indeed and have found it very helpful - highly recommend it if you're in need. Not sure why this is relevant.

Maybe we're hitting a bit of an "impedence mismatch" here. I suspect, partly as you're coming through from an Aussie instance that it may be partly due to a lack of context on how fucked things are, labor-wise in the States. Healthcare here is tied to one's employment, intentionally. It is technically possible to get insurance through a public exchange but, practically speaking, it's not going to do much, especially if one has chronic or severe health problems. Also, we have very poor protections against firings and layoffs (most US labor contracts are pretty well one-sided).

Is work the purpose of my life? Fuck no. I have, however, been repeatedly screwed over, job-wise, by things outside of my control (Recession, offshoring, mergers, untreated ADHD). It is pretty awful, if you haven't yourself, I recommend giving the experience a pass. This has made me acutely aware of the impact that my actions can have on others, not just the immediate but also the secondary and tertiary impacts. I'm also the primary income for my household, so, that rather raises the stakes a bit.

Put these things together with the fact that I now have have coworkers who will literally die without medical care (insurance through work - so cancer patients have to have a job or a spouse with great coverage) and it should paint a good picture for someone with a healthy dose of empathy. Because of how labor is structured in the US, screwing up in a manner that has a big impact on the company means that I could be killing someone indirectly. Should that kind of thing be an employee's responsibility? No. But that's the reality of it. Actions have consequences within the system that one operates in, fair or not.

As for cybersecurity, somewhat fair. I'm not fixated on it but do definitely have a more significant interest than most. With the overall increase in cyberattacks on companies, states, and individuals, I'd recommend everyone being more security conscious.