141–150 of 277 posts
Its complete hypocrisy to affect commitment and then slink away when it comes to your own products. That raises questions about conflict of interest and credibility.
Related discussion here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18169243 . Normally we'd treat these as dupes of each other (and initially we did that), but there seem to be two stories here: one about the data breach and one about Google+. So I guess we'll leave both of them up.
It's a fancy bit of PR-fu right here from Google, like releasing a jobs report right after a big hurricane hits so people don't notice it. A data breach is one thing, but the cover-up should put the nail in coffin of Google's image as benevolent good guys. They are basically Comcast now.
Wow the Wall St. Journal and Murdoch really does not like Google. This article makes this sound like this is something that it appears to not be. Did this all start when Google fired Damore? Or does it date further back?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fancy bit of PR-fu right here from Google, like releasing a jobs report right after a big hurricane hits so people don't notice it. A data breach is one thing, but the cover-up should put the nail in coffin of Google's image as benevolent good guys. They are basically Comcast now.
No, I get surprisingly decent service from Comcast plus I'm obviously their customer not their product. How about "more weaselly than Facebook"?
Ay, there's the rub, innit?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I too find Google only keeping 2 weeks of logs unbelievable.
The regulatory costs of GDPR mean that for every piece of log data, you want to think about whether or not you really want to keep it. If you don't have a good business case for keeping it, you're often better off erring on the side of deletion.
Companies internally find and fix security bugs all the time and dont talk about it if no known breach occured. Is there a requirement to do this? Maybe there should be a requirement to document that due diligence occurred to understand if it was exploited?
I would think it should be required to report. Just because you don’t know if a vulnerability was exploited does not mean it was not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fancy bit of PR-fu right here from Google, like releasing a jobs report right after a big hurricane hits so people don't notice it. A data breach is one thing, but the cover-up should put the nail in coffin of Google's image as benevolent good guys. They are basically Comcast now.
No, I get surprisingly decent service from Comcast plus I'm obviously their customer not their product. How about "more weaselly than Facebook"?
This is the same comcast we're talking about right? The one that's spent millions lobbying for the right to monitor what their customers do online and sell it to advertisers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a fancy bit of PR-fu right here from Google, like releasing a jobs report right after a big hurricane hits so people don't notice it. A data breach is one thing, but the cover-up should put the nail in coffin of Google's image as benevolent good guys. They are basically Comcast now.
No, I get surprisingly decent service from Comcast plus I'm obviously their customer not their product. How about "more weaselly than Facebook"?
Are you sure you are not both? ATT gives you a discount on your monthly fee if you allow them to inject their own ads. It was opt-in, but it would not surprise me if they don't just do it to all users. Plus, if you are using their DNS, I'd assume they are slurping in all of that data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Access logs with no profile data logged would not compromise privacy would it? True, but access logs without profile data would prevent you know _which_ profiles were accessed. This matches with the actual claim in the article that they would be "unable to determine which users were affected"
Right, but the only "profile data" they would need to add to the logs to know, would be a user ID. Not really any private info.