Malicious Compliance

19593 readers

1 users here now

People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.

======

We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.

======

Also check out the following communities:

!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

2271

Work from home (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by The_Picard_Maneuver@lemmy.world to c/maliciouscompliance@lemmy.world

206 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] icedterminal@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

No, they can still refuse to provide a device as my original comment states. Since my employer refused to do so, they came up with an alternative without any additional input from me. They completely side stepped the app requirement by using a little key chain once they reached out to Cisco. Your employer has options. They have to find out what works best to make sure you can do the job they have hired you to do.

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 months ago

Ok, so they refused, but provided an alternative to the app. Makes sense!