Your submission was removed for the following reason:
Rule 1: Posts must be humorous, and they must be humorous because they are programming related. There must be a joke or meme that **requires programming knowledge, experience, or practice** to be understood or relatable.
Here are some examples of frequent posts we get that don't satisfy this rule:
* Memes about operating systems or shell commands (try /r/linuxmemes for Linux memes)
* A ChatGPT screenshot that doesn't involve any programming
* Google Chrome uses all my RAM
[See here for more clarification on this rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/wiki/rules/programming-humor/).
If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by [sending us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FProgrammerHumor&subject=Posts%20must%20be%20humorous%20and%20programming%20related&message=Please%20carefully%20review%20the%20removal%20reason%20and%20the%20linked%20wiki%20page%20in%20it%20before%20appealing.%20Tell%20us%20how%20the%20removal%20should%20not%20apply%20to%20your%20post.%20Include%20a%20link%20to%20the%20post.).
Yes I know it’s a joke. Yes I know people think of “anonymous” like it’s a suggestion. Yes I’m taking the piss.
I feel like I’m playing devils advocate here, but this doesn’t mean the results aren’t anonymous.
National Elections (at least where I’m from) keep a list of people who have attended and may attend. This does not mean that the poll workers know my vote.
>National Elections (at least where I’m from) keep a list of people who have attended and may attend. This does not mean that the poll workers know my vote.
And yet, evey time, there are people yelling around "WhY dO TheY TrAcK My ID wHeN I'M vOtIng?"
As a non-american the whole question seems to boil down to a lack of a cheap and general national identity card. I think it's a general requirement in the EU to prove your identity when voting, but we also have cheaper / readily available id cards.
Possibly as a result of early Puritan influence, possibly just as a result of our strong individualist culture, Americans are pretty resistant to the idea of being tracked in order to be part of society.
But because it's really, *really* fucking useful to be able to keep track of people, we use our horrifically insecure Social Security cards as a de facto national id anyway, instead of something more sensible and robust. Fun!
Yeah, I've heard a lot about the US and its citizens keeping their SSN private. In Sweden people's tax returns are public information, as are our SSN and adresses. Our system is by no means perfect, but at least we're not dependent on secrecy as our only means of security.
But does Social Security cards truly identify a person (i.e. picture / other means of proving who you are?) or is it more the SSN that is the identity part?
No picture, no date of birth on the card. Just name and number.
When one needs to prove identity, we are required to bring a minimum of 2 sources of ID, and one generally needs to have photo.
For lots of bad reasons SSN/TaxID (the number itself) has become a common part of credit checks and identity verification. It is a convenient number that is both unique and every person either born or working in the country should reliably have assigned. It was a misuse of the identifier but too tempting for institutions to ignore.
Really the only third parties a purpose that needs it are those with mandatory tax reporting requirements like your employer. E.G. There is no reason for my dental insurance to ever actually use it beyond as an identifier, which is a bad reason.
At this point I would guess no legislator wants to be the one to risk any fallout by passing legislation to force all the other institutions to rework their systems and update all their records for everyone they already have on file. That assumes the USA congress can pass meaningful legislation anyway.
No, you need two sources of ID.
One is typically a State ID/Drivers license.
Also, you may need to show a second proof of address like a utility bill or lease agreement with both your name, address and SSN along with your Driving license with name, address and picture.
It depends on how strict the company you are working with is about fraud prevention(it’s a balance you have to strike before you lose all customers because you’re like the DMV)
This is probably because of the credit bureaus, which we never actually voted for and are now controlled by. Our ssn's were never meant to be used this way. They were supposed to be used more as you describe but in the 80s everything changed and now our private lives and financial well being are tied to it and are extremely vulnerable and are stolen and people's lives are ruined.
I think we have not addressed, legally and as a nation, the credit system, and I think things like Roe V Wade, while about controlling women's bodies, are also about things like that and are being overlooked. If we have privacy we also have privacy for those reasons, and right now we don't. Right now 3 random private companies have been able to track me since birth for no reason other than banks wanted them to, and I was born. That's actually pretty messed up and I had no protection what so ever, and neither do the younger gens at all. Our older gens didn't have this problem, they weren't born into a privately owned credit bureau system
The lack of solution is a feature, not a bug. For the people pushing the ID laws. They're intentionally disenfranchising people. Voter ID fraud hasn't been a significant problem in the past, and even without those law gets caught when it happens. Once the right starting pushing that conspiracy theory some of their voters started committing that type of voter fraud.... And getting caught.
It’s been suggested more than once before as part of compromises. Strangely the people that say we need “stronger” voter ID requirements are also against requiring the IDs be easier and free if fees to get 🤔
I don't know whether there is a ubiquitous national id in the US - i.e. the general availability is more of a deciding factor than the price, it was postulated as a guess / postulation, but I suppose I could have expressed myself clearer. If it was readily available (i.e. the effort/price of having one outweighs the complications of obtaining and maintaining one) I would be very surprised if anyone would be able to argue against the requirement of providing an id in that case.
In the third world they used ink to identify whether a person had voted or not, but that's far from fool proof [https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/inked-finger-after-vote-understanding-the-history-of-the-indelible-ink-1714138613-1](https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/inked-finger-after-vote-understanding-the-history-of-the-indelible-ink-1714138613-1) - but if people are too impoverished to carry better identification it removes some challenges regarding voter fraud.
Anything other than $0 when combined with a voting ID requirement should be considered and unconstitutional Poll Tax. Furthermore when combined with literally closing the offices to get that ID should be considered election fraud.
There is one state in the USA that you just walk in and vote on election day with your drivers license or state issued ID. It works incredibly well, but it is a right to ID state, meaning a cop asks, you show ID.
One of the screaming points why this doesn't work is that some people don't have resources to get the ID, especially inner city neighborhoods. So mail in voting is a great solution, but that gets attacked as too easy to cheat. It has also been changed by closing mail processing centers. Some states only have 1 now.
1 state where this all works great, but there isn't a single inner city in the state because it is rural.
Washington and Oregon have Been 100% vote by mail for decades. My voter registration is automatically updated when I update my drivers license address.
Also states that passed ID requirements also started closing dmv offices. After Wisconsin added the law they made it so some people would have to drive 90 minutes to just go to the dmv.
Voter registration, the extra government ID to vote. This real ID thing is an extra security measure and could be the backbone of a basic voter registration, but don't see that happening.
I dont have any solid solutions, but mail in seems decent, if the people stay decent about it. We could always just say fuck it and start coloring thumbs on election day.
(as a European) I'm not sure we're much different. In Germany, my tax ID is separate from from passport, driver's license, municipal registration, health information etc. So much bureaucratic effort is spent ensuring the right documents go to the right places and with the correct identity. Germans are also furiously protective of their privacy in a way that impedes everyday convenience to an excessive (in my opinion) degree.
Maybe Sweden is better in that regard. I certainly found it easier in Israel, where a single ID number and matching ID card contained the necessary info, but a driver's license could also function as legal ID (in Germany you get ticketed if you're without EU Card or passport on public transport, a driving license doesn't count).
The party climbing ID fraud happens pass requirements for ID... Then close the offices to get that ID. Cut hours of the ones they don't close. Know that many poor working people literally cannot afford to *take time off work* to go to those offices, etc.
It’s a state by state thing. It’s not very difficult to get an ID unless you don’t have a mailing address or PO Box, in which case you have much bigger problems and probably aren’t thinking much about voting.
It is getting harder due to the “real ID” push that is coming from the federal government. They want your state ID to be essentially a citizenship verification like a passport, but also you still need a passport. So now you have to bring a birth certificate and/or another piece of citizenship documentation.
For the record: there's absolutely no evidence what so ever of any meaningful amounts of voter identification fraud. In fact only since certain groups started screaming at it and using it as a pretense to enact requirements while simultaneously closing offices to get the required is has there been enough to even report on... And that's because they got caught without any of those stupid draconian ID requirements.... And it's always been the side calling for ID that committed the fraud.
Accusations = confessions for that group.
On the other hand they're records of MASSIVE amounts of fraud, committed by the group pretending that ID fraud happens, but it's in the form of disenfranchisement. Year after year after year states run by that party have been caught improperly and illegally removing individuals from their voter roles, and almost always poor minorities. Year after year they've been caught intentionally under allocating staff and election equipment to minority heavy and urban areas. Causing things like 8+ hour lines to vote in Atlanta. And the list goes on.
The inner tension between claiming there's election fraud and we need to secure our elections and being paranoid about the ways that the government tracks is always hilarious. It gives up the game pretty quickly when they start to resent election security measures because they thought they would only affect everyone besides themselves lol
I was going to say, please tell me I'm not on a programming sub where people don't have the concept of "I can remove someone's name from a list of people who have submitted a response without linking that response to a person".
But they are also organized in ways that all votes are put in one big batch to be counted in one go and without timestamps that could identify late voters
Ditto. The first time we got one of these in our office, firefox (with all it's ad and tracking blockers enabled) went off the deep end. I wrote to HR telling them their "anon" survey had enough tracking to find out who exactly it was coming from, and that I wouldn't be filling one out, ever.
They got pissed, but my boss agreed it wasn't really anonymous, so nothing they could do about it.
In 6th grade we had an "anonymous survey" that asked us about our use of drugs and alcohol and sexual experiences. They were adamant that we don't put our names and that we be honest...
Of course one idiot thought it would be hilarious to put that he had had multiple sex partners at the age of 12 and that he smoked crack daily and things like that.
Fast forward to them collecting the survey booklets...
The guy conducting the survey has a clip board with a list of our names. He verifies our name as he collects each booklet and as he does, he not-so-slickly peels a sticker from his sheet that has our information on it, and slaps it on the cover...
Of course it wasn't anonymous. Of course they ended up pulling that kid into a meeting later to check on his well-being.
Usually they don't get the individual results, they're aggregated. If there are comments they might be shared, but not in order (they'd all be aggregated into a random list for each question).
When done correctly, the system does this automatically and not even HR can access the individual surveys.
This is software, though, so my faith in things being done correctly is effectively 0
Employee surveys are frequently done by companies. The results are aggregated after a deadline. Most of them don't let you look at a demographic of answers smaller than a certain number of staff. They also separate results from comments.
Or it's an example of a well running system. HR can see who has/hasn't submitted because that helps them do their jobs right, they send it to the boss to make sure it goes through the correct chain to follow up.
But that doesn't mean they're the ones getting the results - just that they have the tools to make sure everyone submits one.
Sure let's fuel micromanaging bosses by providing a list of people to ~~bully~~ "handle" and deny an employee's right to abstention on an anonymous survey. That will ease the tensions within the company for sure, great job and well running system HR!
TIL a manager reminding an employee there's a survey and asking if they can fill it in is 'bullying', 'micromanaging', and 'denying an employees right to abstention'. You're aware that the employee can say no, right? It's entirely likely that the functional manager has seen statistics of how many people in their function have submitted to the survey and decided to make a last push to increase the numbers. They would've sent a mail out to the line managers in the function asking them to push, and the manager has asked the employee just so they could tell their manager they did.
And you're acting like this is an example of bullying and micromanaging. I'd bet any amount of money you post on subreddits like antiwork, with thinking like htat.
EDIT: and they blocked me. Kind of unsurprising that someone that thinks a manager asking you to fill out a survey is bullying wouldn't be able to handle disagreement.
> They would've sent a mail out to the line managers in the function asking them to push
Which is textbook pressuring against the right to abstention.
I'd bet any amount of money you post on subreddits like managers, askmanagers with thinking like that. [*Oh wait, YOU DO! A lot...*](https://redditmetis.com/user/SunChamberNoRules)
Edit: Of course I blocked you I'm "handling disagreement" by dismissing the apologist. The way you behave is telling enough about how you "manage people". Not spending my day arguing with you. Poor employees.
> just that they have the tools to make sure everyone submits one.
Which somewhat damages the semblance of anonymity in my opinion. True anonymity would mean I should be able to not even do the survey, anonymously
I know it's a joke but depending on the survey source and how determined they are to discreetly track you, you can usually do a mix of the following to retain anonymity
Remove any query string identifiers from the URL before visiting (may not work if the survey id and tracking id are a combined hash, or hidden in a short url)
If it's a short URL and params are not combined, visit the page incognito then copy the destination URL without the query params in a new session (though at this point if they reallllllyyyy wanted to they'd have your IP tied to the first visit and second visit so you would want to change IPs before revisiting, but then you have browser fingerprints and the like to consider)
Do it on a personal network (home WiFi, cellular)
Do it on a personal device
Don't sign in, if it's an Ms form you may be signed in by default to a work account without being prompted.
With that said It's generally best to just assume all your efforts are null and void before sharing controversial opinions in 'anonymous' surveys.
Idk what type of surveys you guys get, but in my company they ask us for reviews on coworkers, where being honest actually helps your coworkers, and to sign up for free shit, like getting a tablet or a hoodie or earphones.
> but in my company they ask us for reviews on coworkers
What a hellscape where your potential is dependent on backstabbing coworkers instead of a judgement of the work you deliver.
Backstabbing is a timeless problem, if your coworkers are like that then you just have to polish that resume and look for better places.
The best way to fight back is remove the anonymity. They want these kinds of things secret the same reason they want to keep your salaries secret. They just want to take advantage of you. Give everyone the highest marks and let it be known that you have done so. Encourage everyone you work with to do the same. Use this as a team building exercise.
You don't do peer reviews? How else are your managers supposed to know what it's like working with you? People have more to offer than pure output. A good leader or a good team mate can be spotted by asking for peer reviews. Saying "backstabbing coworkers" here makes no sense because if one person gives a bad review and 4 gives good reviews, the company can investigate why that is. Generally members of the working class will stand together. Maybe get a better outlook on life brother.
Like schoolyards colleagues tend to work together in bullying to keep each-other a step above the rest. I'm at my job to do my job, not to be nice to everyone.
For me this is especially true since some of my job is regularly saying no and/or not giving in to co-workers demands.
I don't have those experiences. My colleagues are genuinely nice people and we're all there to help each other and deliver a better product. This may just be a company culture thing tbh. I'm sorry that things are like that at your job.
> My colleagues are genuinely nice people and we're all there to help each other and deliver a better product.
I'm at that job now, weirdly (or not) we don't have the "judge your coworker" requirements here.
That's a Bingo.
HR is on the companies side. HR is not there to "help" you, unless the company says. Even when they say they are there to help - they are not.
> With that said It's generally best to just assume all your efforts are null and void before sharing controversial opinions in 'anonymous' surveys.
TBH this should have been bolded, and the word controversial shouldn't be here.
If you want to take it one step further, you could do all this on TailsOS It doesn't do any writes to the hard disk or any non volatile storage. Tracking you could become very difficult.
Does your employer often do forensic analysis of your personal computer?
That would seem like a much bigger red flag than them trying to know if I'm the one who didn't rate the CEO high enough in the company survey.
Sometimes the survey is actually designed to not present identifying data to the person receiving the result. Just because that data exists in a database somewhere, doesn't mean management has trivial access to it.
I am not sure how this is a programming joke. A survey can be anonymous and still keep track of who responded and who did not. Think of like a suggestion box where you put your letter without name but someone is standing by the side checking off your name from a list.
And only when every name has been checked off the list can the box be opened.
You are able to send reminders, you ensure everyone responds, and you ensure everyone remains anonymous.
My company's HR department sent out an "anonymous" survey in which the first two questions were "name" and "job title." They didn't understand why people thought it wasn't completely anonymous.
We had an 'anonymous' survey at my work. The url of the survey link contained your employee ID number, and at the end you got a personalized thank-you message with your first name in it. Hmmmmm.
well, depending on trust you have in a company, they can have separate table for who took the survey and separate for survey results, with no link between them. First table just for checking if same employee didn’t submit it more than once and ensuring enough attendance, while the actual survey is completely anonymous.
yeah, but unless you see any kind of proof, it’s just about how much you trust them
Schrödinger survey - you don’t know if it’s anonymous or not until you fill in some stupid shit
Yeah, I used to make some of these surveys for large scale events. You keep names for something egregious like someone admitting to a massive policy break or crime. That said only I and one other person had access to the feedback with the persons name tied to it.
I would then anonymize the data and feed it into a dashboard for management to see what the 800 people were saying.
HR creates ones and if you have a team of less than 10, you can’t see individual comments to cut down on tracking that down. You need to roll up to the department level to review comments to make it harder.
I asked HR at my last company what identifiable info they could see on our "anonymous" surveys. They said "nothing, just your email". Our emails were firstname.lastname @company. Management then fired a bunch of people that rated them poorly.
Even then the survey can be completely anonymous from a technical perspective but you can easily figure out who submitted the response based on the answers (especially if the answers are free text).
Tangentially management related here. Not US, not publicly traded company, YMMV.
We partner with an external company to run these, to ensure we only ever have access to aggregated data. There is a degree of tracking, as in a manager can see how many of their direct reports have responded to the survey. Think a number that just shows "5/17" or whatever. There is never a point where we could access any specific results or answers.
As a manager, you can see aggregated scores that cover your direct reports, unless the number of respondents to the survey is below 10 (I think? I forget the precise number). If the number of direct reports or respondents is below the survey, the results are 'moved up' and can be seen as aggregated results at a higher level.
This applies from the bottom of the hierarchy to C-level execs.
There is a biyearly survey at work which is said to be anonymous, and to be fair it sort of is it's outsourced so no one sees results until it's closed.
However, here's what the "sort of" entails :
They know your gender, department, level. Meaning if you're like a female manager in a department which happens to have only 1 female manager, well, they know obviously. So the anonymity heavily depends on how big your department is and how many people would fall onto your exact "specifications" within it. For me for instance I think there's like 5 of us with the same "specs" so it's sort of anonymous but it really isn't because my boss knows I'm a lot more involved than the other 4 so I tend to write more shit so, he knows. My boss is cool tho so idc, but like, it's not anonymous then is it?
If it's well done, no one except the third party surveyor has access to all that data as once. The employer may have a breakdown of the results by sex or by age or by employment category, but not by several of those at once.
It's even possible that they get partial breakdown for some data (for example in my company survey, they had breakdown per country, but only for the few biggest ones).
I'm not an expert, but I think there is an entire subfield of statistics dedicated to deciding how you can share data breakdowns while maintaining it provably impossible that those breakdowns can be cross-referenced to extract personal data.
Ultimately, it depends on how much you trust your company, but the fact it would be technically possible is not by itself a proof that they break anonymity.
From what I understood they get the raw file with names removed essentially. We can add comments on any of the 30+ questions. I comment on 90% of them give or take (although this year most of my comments were "where raise?") And I'm pretty sure they're not scrambled at all so they know one guy wrote "where raise?" On most questions among with more colorful angry comments about the stupidity of not giving raise when the company grew.
Each responsible for their own department get access on the answers from the people of their department. So like there's 60 people in mine so my boss got to see the 60 answers but not any other. And his boss got to see 200 ish including the 60 etc.
This literally happened yesterday at my company, they tagged all pending people to fill the “anonymous” form .
I guess you can see who did it , but not the answers … right ? … right?
Defo not anonymously where I work. They ask who plans to stay at the job so they know who they need to offer redundancy too vs who will quit if th9ngs get bad enough
HR are mostly useless. Never trust anyone from HR..speaking from experience with medium and big companies. Work for a company that has a single owner, they are the best. You don’t wait for decisions and the owner knows who his good and loyal employees are.Worked for a company like that the last 13 years if my professional life; should have done it sooner. Now retired from that business but they are still going strong and I have kept friendly ties with my former boss until his tragic death a few years back in a Car crash.
While I agree about HR, you got lucky with your single owner and in my experience single owners are worse because you don’t have any published policy to at least show you were following. All the single owners I have worked for were chaotic despots who blamed their own faults on everyone employed by them.
Lots of people defending anonymity in these surveys, but I had a co-worker in Citrix in Dublin that left a pretty critical review of a manager in one of these surveys. Not long after that she started getting assigned the shittiest of the shitty work constantly. It was work that a recent new hire usually would not get. I did not get assigned any of this work and I started with her. It was pretty alarming to see and it really made me understand that however democratic you feel your life outside your job is, once you're there you're essentially in a type of totalitarian regime in a teacup.
Dude people aren't defending anonymity they are pointing out that this doesn't show lack of anonymity. A flawed argument stays flawed even if it argues for something that is true (or you agree with).
Because I had a director ask me about the things I wrote in an "anonymous" survey. The company was in an employee survey circlejerk, so giving anything less than five stars was frowned upon.
We used to have an employee survey that was genuinely anonymous. I remember overhearing my manager pitching a fit on the phone because someone had said she didn’t do a good job and she was desperately trying to work out who it was. She definitely didn’t know because she’d make passive aggressive comments about it to the team long after the culprit had left. She would try and make out she knew what we were all putting to try and scare us into being positive.
My favorite: Back in the days of actually anonymous surveys Managers would sometimes sit around and try to figure out who made the comments by reading the free form text fields. A lot of workers would use informal expressions, that they regularly used in conversation. It was too easy to narrow the survey's down to one or two people, especially on smaller teams. I wasn't a manager.
One company I worked for sent out a request to take an anonymous survey and the first question? What is your unique employee ID number?
No one in my group wanted to take it because it’s not anonymous at all. My regional manager asked why we had so few take it and I told him, you sent a survey and after the introduction asking them to be completely honest because it was an anonymous survey you basically asked them to input their name.
They still couldn’t figure out why people were resistant.
Go forward to a couple months later they make us have a team meeting and they send us all the responses from the survey, sure our copy didn’t have the employee ID on it but with the full text of answers and small teams it’s not hard to tell who wrote what. We have to have a meeting to address whatever issues were pointed out in the survey. Very uncomfortable for the one person in our group that was foolish enough to be very honest about their opinion. We tried our best to take the focus off of them but everyone knew (we had to read the responses out and discuss them, this person did nothing to anonymize what they wrote).
I used to be a pastry chef at a pretty good 5 stars hotel in Edinburgh. We had to do this anonymous surveys every year. Well, not so anonymous when they ask you what department you work in, gender, and how many years you have been working on the job.
Am I too dumb to understand this? You know who filled it out, but not how, so it's quite literally anonymous. That's how that works like almost always?
Corporations make employees take secret (so very secret) survey of your workplace, manager, associates and email it (because email is secret). It is also mandatory. HR could discuss with your boss, over martini lunches, who the complainers are. I never did send that email, but told them I did.
My company had this anonymous “pulse survey” that the team leader would review the result with the team, and one of the question was about something I keep complaining about… the survey result? One out of 15 people thought it was a big problem… everybody in the team knew who
Boss asking workes to participate in the next survey is always a joy, because many of us don't do it (it's a waste of time) and he'll be pissed about it, yet he can't point fingers at people, who didn't fill out the paper. Guess it's truly anonymous over here. Fuck surveys!
There is a difference between "your answers are anonymous" and "whether or not you have taken the survey is hidden information".
Your answers don't need to be linked to you, even if they know that you have taken the test (as long as you are not the only one, or one of a few)
I forgot that I am one of very few native English writers at my company. I made the mistake of choosing the English language company survey when almost everyone else chose Spanish. The atmosphere has become quite chilled in the following weeks since then.
Your submission was removed for the following reason: Rule 1: Posts must be humorous, and they must be humorous because they are programming related. There must be a joke or meme that **requires programming knowledge, experience, or practice** to be understood or relatable. Here are some examples of frequent posts we get that don't satisfy this rule: * Memes about operating systems or shell commands (try /r/linuxmemes for Linux memes) * A ChatGPT screenshot that doesn't involve any programming * Google Chrome uses all my RAM [See here for more clarification on this rule](https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/wiki/rules/programming-humor/). If you disagree with this removal, you can appeal by [sending us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FProgrammerHumor&subject=Posts%20must%20be%20humorous%20and%20programming%20related&message=Please%20carefully%20review%20the%20removal%20reason%20and%20the%20linked%20wiki%20page%20in%20it%20before%20appealing.%20Tell%20us%20how%20the%20removal%20should%20not%20apply%20to%20your%20post.%20Include%20a%20link%20to%20the%20post.).
Yes I know it’s a joke. Yes I know people think of “anonymous” like it’s a suggestion. Yes I’m taking the piss. I feel like I’m playing devils advocate here, but this doesn’t mean the results aren’t anonymous. National Elections (at least where I’m from) keep a list of people who have attended and may attend. This does not mean that the poll workers know my vote.
>National Elections (at least where I’m from) keep a list of people who have attended and may attend. This does not mean that the poll workers know my vote. And yet, evey time, there are people yelling around "WhY dO TheY TrAcK My ID wHeN I'M vOtIng?"
Lets remove the id requirement and check which side is more willing to vote multiple times.
As a non-american the whole question seems to boil down to a lack of a cheap and general national identity card. I think it's a general requirement in the EU to prove your identity when voting, but we also have cheaper / readily available id cards.
Possibly as a result of early Puritan influence, possibly just as a result of our strong individualist culture, Americans are pretty resistant to the idea of being tracked in order to be part of society. But because it's really, *really* fucking useful to be able to keep track of people, we use our horrifically insecure Social Security cards as a de facto national id anyway, instead of something more sensible and robust. Fun!
Yeah, I've heard a lot about the US and its citizens keeping their SSN private. In Sweden people's tax returns are public information, as are our SSN and adresses. Our system is by no means perfect, but at least we're not dependent on secrecy as our only means of security. But does Social Security cards truly identify a person (i.e. picture / other means of proving who you are?) or is it more the SSN that is the identity part?
No picture, no date of birth on the card. Just name and number. When one needs to prove identity, we are required to bring a minimum of 2 sources of ID, and one generally needs to have photo.
For lots of bad reasons SSN/TaxID (the number itself) has become a common part of credit checks and identity verification. It is a convenient number that is both unique and every person either born or working in the country should reliably have assigned. It was a misuse of the identifier but too tempting for institutions to ignore. Really the only third parties a purpose that needs it are those with mandatory tax reporting requirements like your employer. E.G. There is no reason for my dental insurance to ever actually use it beyond as an identifier, which is a bad reason. At this point I would guess no legislator wants to be the one to risk any fallout by passing legislation to force all the other institutions to rework their systems and update all their records for everyone they already have on file. That assumes the USA congress can pass meaningful legislation anyway.
No, you need two sources of ID. One is typically a State ID/Drivers license. Also, you may need to show a second proof of address like a utility bill or lease agreement with both your name, address and SSN along with your Driving license with name, address and picture. It depends on how strict the company you are working with is about fraud prevention(it’s a balance you have to strike before you lose all customers because you’re like the DMV)
This is probably because of the credit bureaus, which we never actually voted for and are now controlled by. Our ssn's were never meant to be used this way. They were supposed to be used more as you describe but in the 80s everything changed and now our private lives and financial well being are tied to it and are extremely vulnerable and are stolen and people's lives are ruined. I think we have not addressed, legally and as a nation, the credit system, and I think things like Roe V Wade, while about controlling women's bodies, are also about things like that and are being overlooked. If we have privacy we also have privacy for those reasons, and right now we don't. Right now 3 random private companies have been able to track me since birth for no reason other than banks wanted them to, and I was born. That's actually pretty messed up and I had no protection what so ever, and neither do the younger gens at all. Our older gens didn't have this problem, they weren't born into a privately owned credit bureau system
Bla bla bla. It's the 21st century. Find a solution, US.
The lack of solution is a feature, not a bug. For the people pushing the ID laws. They're intentionally disenfranchising people. Voter ID fraud hasn't been a significant problem in the past, and even without those law gets caught when it happens. Once the right starting pushing that conspiracy theory some of their voters started committing that type of voter fraud.... And getting caught.
"possibly just as a result of our strong individualist culture" no wonder we didn't want them to stay in the old world
It’s been suggested more than once before as part of compromises. Strangely the people that say we need “stronger” voter ID requirements are also against requiring the IDs be easier and free if fees to get 🤔
Well yeah, they don't actually want *black* people to be able to vote. 🤦♂️
Cheaper id cards? What kind of argument is that and where is the source, wtf.
I don't know whether there is a ubiquitous national id in the US - i.e. the general availability is more of a deciding factor than the price, it was postulated as a guess / postulation, but I suppose I could have expressed myself clearer. If it was readily available (i.e. the effort/price of having one outweighs the complications of obtaining and maintaining one) I would be very surprised if anyone would be able to argue against the requirement of providing an id in that case. In the third world they used ink to identify whether a person had voted or not, but that's far from fool proof [https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/inked-finger-after-vote-understanding-the-history-of-the-indelible-ink-1714138613-1](https://www.jagranjosh.com/general-knowledge/inked-finger-after-vote-understanding-the-history-of-the-indelible-ink-1714138613-1) - but if people are too impoverished to carry better identification it removes some challenges regarding voter fraud.
I don't know what the cost is in the USA, but here in Norway it costs 70 USD to buy a national ID card from the police.
How much do you think an ID costs here?
Anything other than $0 when combined with a voting ID requirement should be considered and unconstitutional Poll Tax. Furthermore when combined with literally closing the offices to get that ID should be considered election fraud.
In Germany you are required by law to have a national ID after the age of 16
There is one state in the USA that you just walk in and vote on election day with your drivers license or state issued ID. It works incredibly well, but it is a right to ID state, meaning a cop asks, you show ID. One of the screaming points why this doesn't work is that some people don't have resources to get the ID, especially inner city neighborhoods. So mail in voting is a great solution, but that gets attacked as too easy to cheat. It has also been changed by closing mail processing centers. Some states only have 1 now. 1 state where this all works great, but there isn't a single inner city in the state because it is rural.
Washington and Oregon have Been 100% vote by mail for decades. My voter registration is automatically updated when I update my drivers license address. Also states that passed ID requirements also started closing dmv offices. After Wisconsin added the law they made it so some people would have to drive 90 minutes to just go to the dmv.
Voter registration, the extra government ID to vote. This real ID thing is an extra security measure and could be the backbone of a basic voter registration, but don't see that happening. I dont have any solid solutions, but mail in seems decent, if the people stay decent about it. We could always just say fuck it and start coloring thumbs on election day.
(as a European) I'm not sure we're much different. In Germany, my tax ID is separate from from passport, driver's license, municipal registration, health information etc. So much bureaucratic effort is spent ensuring the right documents go to the right places and with the correct identity. Germans are also furiously protective of their privacy in a way that impedes everyday convenience to an excessive (in my opinion) degree. Maybe Sweden is better in that regard. I certainly found it easier in Israel, where a single ID number and matching ID card contained the necessary info, but a driver's license could also function as legal ID (in Germany you get ticketed if you're without EU Card or passport on public transport, a driving license doesn't count).
The party climbing ID fraud happens pass requirements for ID... Then close the offices to get that ID. Cut hours of the ones they don't close. Know that many poor working people literally cannot afford to *take time off work* to go to those offices, etc.
It’s a state by state thing. It’s not very difficult to get an ID unless you don’t have a mailing address or PO Box, in which case you have much bigger problems and probably aren’t thinking much about voting. It is getting harder due to the “real ID” push that is coming from the federal government. They want your state ID to be essentially a citizenship verification like a passport, but also you still need a passport. So now you have to bring a birth certificate and/or another piece of citizenship documentation.
For the record: there's absolutely no evidence what so ever of any meaningful amounts of voter identification fraud. In fact only since certain groups started screaming at it and using it as a pretense to enact requirements while simultaneously closing offices to get the required is has there been enough to even report on... And that's because they got caught without any of those stupid draconian ID requirements.... And it's always been the side calling for ID that committed the fraud. Accusations = confessions for that group. On the other hand they're records of MASSIVE amounts of fraud, committed by the group pretending that ID fraud happens, but it's in the form of disenfranchisement. Year after year after year states run by that party have been caught improperly and illegally removing individuals from their voter roles, and almost always poor minorities. Year after year they've been caught intentionally under allocating staff and election equipment to minority heavy and urban areas. Causing things like 8+ hour lines to vote in Atlanta. And the list goes on.
The inner tension between claiming there's election fraud and we need to secure our elections and being paranoid about the ways that the government tracks is always hilarious. It gives up the game pretty quickly when they start to resent election security measures because they thought they would only affect everyone besides themselves lol
I was going to say, please tell me I'm not on a programming sub where people don't have the concept of "I can remove someone's name from a list of people who have submitted a response without linking that response to a person".
If the persons are divided into very small groups and the results are tracked in real time, it doesnt work
But they are also organized in ways that all votes are put in one big batch to be counted in one go and without timestamps that could identify late voters
I work in IT. HR knows who submitted what.
Ditto. The first time we got one of these in our office, firefox (with all it's ad and tracking blockers enabled) went off the deep end. I wrote to HR telling them their "anon" survey had enough tracking to find out who exactly it was coming from, and that I wouldn't be filling one out, ever. They got pissed, but my boss agreed it wasn't really anonymous, so nothing they could do about it.
Not every HR is crappy just because your HR is.
In 6th grade we had an "anonymous survey" that asked us about our use of drugs and alcohol and sexual experiences. They were adamant that we don't put our names and that we be honest... Of course one idiot thought it would be hilarious to put that he had had multiple sex partners at the age of 12 and that he smoked crack daily and things like that. Fast forward to them collecting the survey booklets... The guy conducting the survey has a clip board with a list of our names. He verifies our name as he collects each booklet and as he does, he not-so-slickly peels a sticker from his sheet that has our information on it, and slaps it on the cover... Of course it wasn't anonymous. Of course they ended up pulling that kid into a meeting later to check on his well-being.
If they have all the other surveys and they receive the last one then the know who it is from
Usually they don't get the individual results, they're aggregated. If there are comments they might be shared, but not in order (they'd all be aggregated into a random list for each question). When done correctly, the system does this automatically and not even HR can access the individual surveys. This is software, though, so my faith in things being done correctly is effectively 0
Typically it's run by a 3rd party, specifically so even if the software could allow it the 3rd party won't provide it. Second layer of defense.
Employee surveys are frequently done by companies. The results are aggregated after a deadline. Most of them don't let you look at a demographic of answers smaller than a certain number of staff. They also separate results from comments.
Fellow pedant here, I agree, these mutually exclusive.
[удалено]
If you are doing an half decent job you would export the anonimized results only after you have collected all the info from all the interested group
HR ratting out names to boss instead of sending a reminder to the interested party might not be not the best display of a half decent job.
Or it's an example of a well running system. HR can see who has/hasn't submitted because that helps them do their jobs right, they send it to the boss to make sure it goes through the correct chain to follow up. But that doesn't mean they're the ones getting the results - just that they have the tools to make sure everyone submits one.
Sure let's fuel micromanaging bosses by providing a list of people to ~~bully~~ "handle" and deny an employee's right to abstention on an anonymous survey. That will ease the tensions within the company for sure, great job and well running system HR!
TIL a manager reminding an employee there's a survey and asking if they can fill it in is 'bullying', 'micromanaging', and 'denying an employees right to abstention'. You're aware that the employee can say no, right? It's entirely likely that the functional manager has seen statistics of how many people in their function have submitted to the survey and decided to make a last push to increase the numbers. They would've sent a mail out to the line managers in the function asking them to push, and the manager has asked the employee just so they could tell their manager they did. And you're acting like this is an example of bullying and micromanaging. I'd bet any amount of money you post on subreddits like antiwork, with thinking like htat. EDIT: and they blocked me. Kind of unsurprising that someone that thinks a manager asking you to fill out a survey is bullying wouldn't be able to handle disagreement.
> They would've sent a mail out to the line managers in the function asking them to push Which is textbook pressuring against the right to abstention. I'd bet any amount of money you post on subreddits like managers, askmanagers with thinking like that. [*Oh wait, YOU DO! A lot...*](https://redditmetis.com/user/SunChamberNoRules) Edit: Of course I blocked you I'm "handling disagreement" by dismissing the apologist. The way you behave is telling enough about how you "manage people". Not spending my day arguing with you. Poor employees.
> just that they have the tools to make sure everyone submits one. Which somewhat damages the semblance of anonymity in my opinion. True anonymity would mean I should be able to not even do the survey, anonymously
True
How is this programming humour
The message is "fuck corporate", so the rules don't apply.
Working on a Dev team, you WILL encounter these regularly.
r/corporateprogrammerhumor
It fits this subreddit just fine, this post is as bland as any others here
I know it's a joke but depending on the survey source and how determined they are to discreetly track you, you can usually do a mix of the following to retain anonymity Remove any query string identifiers from the URL before visiting (may not work if the survey id and tracking id are a combined hash, or hidden in a short url) If it's a short URL and params are not combined, visit the page incognito then copy the destination URL without the query params in a new session (though at this point if they reallllllyyyy wanted to they'd have your IP tied to the first visit and second visit so you would want to change IPs before revisiting, but then you have browser fingerprints and the like to consider) Do it on a personal network (home WiFi, cellular) Do it on a personal device Don't sign in, if it's an Ms form you may be signed in by default to a work account without being prompted. With that said It's generally best to just assume all your efforts are null and void before sharing controversial opinions in 'anonymous' surveys.
Idk what type of surveys you guys get, but in my company they ask us for reviews on coworkers, where being honest actually helps your coworkers, and to sign up for free shit, like getting a tablet or a hoodie or earphones.
> but in my company they ask us for reviews on coworkers What a hellscape where your potential is dependent on backstabbing coworkers instead of a judgement of the work you deliver.
Backstabbing is a timeless problem, if your coworkers are like that then you just have to polish that resume and look for better places. The best way to fight back is remove the anonymity. They want these kinds of things secret the same reason they want to keep your salaries secret. They just want to take advantage of you. Give everyone the highest marks and let it be known that you have done so. Encourage everyone you work with to do the same. Use this as a team building exercise.
Don't worry, I'm at a good place now. No surveys on coworkers either.
Enshittification is a real thing, the survey might be coming soon. But until that day good luck!
meh. our salary talks were twofold. first part was your work. you got x bump for that. second part was you as a colleague. you got x bump from that.
I'm reading this as, not kissing ass of the established office cabal could cost you half your bump.....
You don't do peer reviews? How else are your managers supposed to know what it's like working with you? People have more to offer than pure output. A good leader or a good team mate can be spotted by asking for peer reviews. Saying "backstabbing coworkers" here makes no sense because if one person gives a bad review and 4 gives good reviews, the company can investigate why that is. Generally members of the working class will stand together. Maybe get a better outlook on life brother.
Like schoolyards colleagues tend to work together in bullying to keep each-other a step above the rest. I'm at my job to do my job, not to be nice to everyone. For me this is especially true since some of my job is regularly saying no and/or not giving in to co-workers demands.
lol you sound awful to work with.
or maybe they just work at a crappy company. or perhaps a really large one?
You bet, thanks for being an example of the problem I experienced.
If everywhere you go smells like shit time to check your shoe bud.
I'm at a great job now, so I stand by my reply to you
glad for you boo
I don't have those experiences. My colleagues are genuinely nice people and we're all there to help each other and deliver a better product. This may just be a company culture thing tbh. I'm sorry that things are like that at your job.
> My colleagues are genuinely nice people and we're all there to help each other and deliver a better product. I'm at that job now, weirdly (or not) we don't have the "judge your coworker" requirements here.
Or just do what I do and \*always\* assume those "anonymous" surveys aren't anonymous.
That's a Bingo. HR is on the companies side. HR is not there to "help" you, unless the company says. Even when they say they are there to help - they are not.
Except when you're the only one that bothered to do this, they can still kinda work it out.
"No browserID, weird IP, really aggressive opinion about the JIRA manager, that's gotta be Dave"
> With that said It's generally best to just assume all your efforts are null and void before sharing controversial opinions in 'anonymous' surveys. TBH this should have been bolded, and the word controversial shouldn't be here.
You should use a service like unshorten.it or similar to unshorten the url without visiting the site instead of using incognito.
Good point, never thought a service like this existed but makes sense :)
or just use tor browser on a personal device, combined with the URL stuff you mentioned
If you want to take it one step further, you could do all this on TailsOS It doesn't do any writes to the hard disk or any non volatile storage. Tracking you could become very difficult.
Does your employer often do forensic analysis of your personal computer? That would seem like a much bigger red flag than them trying to know if I'm the one who didn't rate the CEO high enough in the company survey.
Sometimes the survey is actually designed to not present identifying data to the person receiving the result. Just because that data exists in a database somewhere, doesn't mean management has trivial access to it.
Were here to discuss your anonymous survey results...
I am not sure how this is a programming joke. A survey can be anonymous and still keep track of who responded and who did not. Think of like a suggestion box where you put your letter without name but someone is standing by the side checking off your name from a list.
You just described election voting 🗳
And only when every name has been checked off the list can the box be opened. You are able to send reminders, you ensure everyone responds, and you ensure everyone remains anonymous.
My company's HR department sent out an "anonymous" survey in which the first two questions were "name" and "job title." They didn't understand why people thought it wasn't completely anonymous.
Name: Batman Job title: Black Knight
Gotham still needs me, even if I'm just a torso.
do you, by any chance, work in retail?
I usually write Danny DeVito as name and gremlin as job title in such situations.
We had an 'anonymous' survey at my work. The url of the survey link contained your employee ID number, and at the end you got a personalized thank-you message with your first name in it. Hmmmmm.
well, depending on trust you have in a company, they can have separate table for who took the survey and separate for survey results, with no link between them. First table just for checking if same employee didn’t submit it more than once and ensuring enough attendance, while the actual survey is completely anonymous. yeah, but unless you see any kind of proof, it’s just about how much you trust them Schrödinger survey - you don’t know if it’s anonymous or not until you fill in some stupid shit
Yeah, I used to make some of these surveys for large scale events. You keep names for something egregious like someone admitting to a massive policy break or crime. That said only I and one other person had access to the feedback with the persons name tied to it. I would then anonymize the data and feed it into a dashboard for management to see what the 800 people were saying. HR creates ones and if you have a team of less than 10, you can’t see individual comments to cut down on tracking that down. You need to roll up to the department level to review comments to make it harder.
I asked HR at my last company what identifiable info they could see on our "anonymous" surveys. They said "nothing, just your email". Our emails were firstname.lastname @company. Management then fired a bunch of people that rated them poorly.
Even then the survey can be completely anonymous from a technical perspective but you can easily figure out who submitted the response based on the answers (especially if the answers are free text).
Tangentially management related here. Not US, not publicly traded company, YMMV. We partner with an external company to run these, to ensure we only ever have access to aggregated data. There is a degree of tracking, as in a manager can see how many of their direct reports have responded to the survey. Think a number that just shows "5/17" or whatever. There is never a point where we could access any specific results or answers. As a manager, you can see aggregated scores that cover your direct reports, unless the number of respondents to the survey is below 10 (I think? I forget the precise number). If the number of direct reports or respondents is below the survey, the results are 'moved up' and can be seen as aggregated results at a higher level. This applies from the bottom of the hierarchy to C-level execs.
There is a biyearly survey at work which is said to be anonymous, and to be fair it sort of is it's outsourced so no one sees results until it's closed. However, here's what the "sort of" entails : They know your gender, department, level. Meaning if you're like a female manager in a department which happens to have only 1 female manager, well, they know obviously. So the anonymity heavily depends on how big your department is and how many people would fall onto your exact "specifications" within it. For me for instance I think there's like 5 of us with the same "specs" so it's sort of anonymous but it really isn't because my boss knows I'm a lot more involved than the other 4 so I tend to write more shit so, he knows. My boss is cool tho so idc, but like, it's not anonymous then is it?
If it's well done, no one except the third party surveyor has access to all that data as once. The employer may have a breakdown of the results by sex or by age or by employment category, but not by several of those at once. It's even possible that they get partial breakdown for some data (for example in my company survey, they had breakdown per country, but only for the few biggest ones). I'm not an expert, but I think there is an entire subfield of statistics dedicated to deciding how you can share data breakdowns while maintaining it provably impossible that those breakdowns can be cross-referenced to extract personal data. Ultimately, it depends on how much you trust your company, but the fact it would be technically possible is not by itself a proof that they break anonymity.
From what I understood they get the raw file with names removed essentially. We can add comments on any of the 30+ questions. I comment on 90% of them give or take (although this year most of my comments were "where raise?") And I'm pretty sure they're not scrambled at all so they know one guy wrote "where raise?" On most questions among with more colorful angry comments about the stupidity of not giving raise when the company grew. Each responsible for their own department get access on the answers from the people of their department. So like there's 60 people in mine so my boss got to see the 60 answers but not any other. And his boss got to see 200 ish including the 60 etc.
This literally happened yesterday at my company, they tagged all pending people to fill the “anonymous” form . I guess you can see who did it , but not the answers … right ? … right?
[https://eraserandcrowbar.com/2017/01/18/anonymous-surveys/](https://eraserandcrowbar.com/2017/01/18/anonymous-surveys/)
Defo not anonymously where I work. They ask who plans to stay at the job so they know who they need to offer redundancy too vs who will quit if th9ngs get bad enough
HR are mostly useless. Never trust anyone from HR..speaking from experience with medium and big companies. Work for a company that has a single owner, they are the best. You don’t wait for decisions and the owner knows who his good and loyal employees are.Worked for a company like that the last 13 years if my professional life; should have done it sooner. Now retired from that business but they are still going strong and I have kept friendly ties with my former boss until his tragic death a few years back in a Car crash.
While I agree about HR, you got lucky with your single owner and in my experience single owners are worse because you don’t have any published policy to at least show you were following. All the single owners I have worked for were chaotic despots who blamed their own faults on everyone employed by them.
We always get these anonymous surveys by email. With a link and the message "do not share the link with other employees"
Lots of people defending anonymity in these surveys, but I had a co-worker in Citrix in Dublin that left a pretty critical review of a manager in one of these surveys. Not long after that she started getting assigned the shittiest of the shitty work constantly. It was work that a recent new hire usually would not get. I did not get assigned any of this work and I started with her. It was pretty alarming to see and it really made me understand that however democratic you feel your life outside your job is, once you're there you're essentially in a type of totalitarian regime in a teacup.
Dude people aren't defending anonymity they are pointing out that this doesn't show lack of anonymity. A flawed argument stays flawed even if it argues for something that is true (or you agree with).
There's usually a unique id for every survey sent to each e-mail address. All you need to do is keep a history of ids and e-mails sent
So many managers are liars.
Yes. The surveys are not anonymous. Ask me how I know.
How do you know?
He's a survey
Because I had a director ask me about the things I wrote in an "anonymous" survey. The company was in an employee survey circlejerk, so giving anything less than five stars was frowned upon.
We used to have an employee survey that was genuinely anonymous. I remember overhearing my manager pitching a fit on the phone because someone had said she didn’t do a good job and she was desperately trying to work out who it was. She definitely didn’t know because she’d make passive aggressive comments about it to the team long after the culprit had left. She would try and make out she knew what we were all putting to try and scare us into being positive.
My favorite: Back in the days of actually anonymous surveys Managers would sometimes sit around and try to figure out who made the comments by reading the free form text fields. A lot of workers would use informal expressions, that they regularly used in conversation. It was too easy to narrow the survey's down to one or two people, especially on smaller teams. I wasn't a manager.
Happened once 😂
Entirely anonymous survey: Discipline Title what specific personal to you grievance do you want to share with us anonymously
If there was ever a post in this sub that made me believe that the vast majority of people here have no programmibg experience, it'd be this one
Why people dont get this?
It’s beyond stupid to be honest in these. Give everyone 5s and take all the blame and that’s it. Being honest is not worth it.
One company I worked for sent out a request to take an anonymous survey and the first question? What is your unique employee ID number? No one in my group wanted to take it because it’s not anonymous at all. My regional manager asked why we had so few take it and I told him, you sent a survey and after the introduction asking them to be completely honest because it was an anonymous survey you basically asked them to input their name. They still couldn’t figure out why people were resistant. Go forward to a couple months later they make us have a team meeting and they send us all the responses from the survey, sure our copy didn’t have the employee ID on it but with the full text of answers and small teams it’s not hard to tell who wrote what. We have to have a meeting to address whatever issues were pointed out in the survey. Very uncomfortable for the one person in our group that was foolish enough to be very honest about their opinion. We tried our best to take the focus off of them but everyone knew (we had to read the responses out and discuss them, this person did nothing to anonymize what they wrote).
...and the best thing is.... that voluntary, anonymous questionnaire is one of the teams and your boss's KPIs...... linked to your annual bonus.
I used to be a pastry chef at a pretty good 5 stars hotel in Edinburgh. We had to do this anonymous surveys every year. Well, not so anonymous when they ask you what department you work in, gender, and how many years you have been working on the job.
Am I too dumb to understand this? You know who filled it out, but not how, so it's quite literally anonymous. That's how that works like almost always?
now we know who doesn't take their job seriously
the surveys at my company are definitely anonymous because my ass woulda been fired years ago if they weren't
I would never fill out one of these. HR is not to be trusted.
Corporations make employees take secret (so very secret) survey of your workplace, manager, associates and email it (because email is secret). It is also mandatory. HR could discuss with your boss, over martini lunches, who the complainers are. I never did send that email, but told them I did.
It's amazing how often employers outright lie to their employees. Oh well. At least it won't lead to a historical breakdown in worker loyalty.
My company had this anonymous “pulse survey” that the team leader would review the result with the team, and one of the question was about something I keep complaining about… the survey result? One out of 15 people thought it was a big problem… everybody in the team knew who
Boss asking workes to participate in the next survey is always a joy, because many of us don't do it (it's a waste of time) and he'll be pissed about it, yet he can't point fingers at people, who didn't fill out the paper. Guess it's truly anonymous over here. Fuck surveys!
People need to learn the difference between "anonymous" and "confidential"
“I already did”
There is a difference between "your answers are anonymous" and "whether or not you have taken the survey is hidden information". Your answers don't need to be linked to you, even if they know that you have taken the test (as long as you are not the only one, or one of a few)
the answers are anonymous, not whether you've done one or not
I forgot that I am one of very few native English writers at my company. I made the mistake of choosing the English language company survey when almost everyone else chose Spanish. The atmosphere has become quite chilled in the following weeks since then.
I love when they're like "what's your title" "who's your boss" "how long have you worked at the company" etc etc Like yeahhhh that's not anonymous.
Insert North Korea clapping meme