Live data from Hacker News

Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

wsj.com

221–230 of 277 posts

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#221

non-paywall version: http://archive.is/rpuA1

Does anyone else get rubbed the wrong way by this sort of irreverent infringement? Even if you have zero concern for journalists’ copyrights, it puts this forum at risk.

While I think posting paywalled links is basically advertisements and I therefore have no problem with people posting accessible versions, I am curious about the same question. I think the question about the legality is legit and shouldn't be downvoted (unless I'm misinterpreting the guidelines). Not sure I'll like the answer and potential new rule, though.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#222
post #184
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The company which consider every single bit of data as "gold" decided not to keep their API's access log > 2 weeks? wow!

Is it possible that your impression of the company is (was?) off? I'm not surprised. They (claim to) do something similar with the logs of their DNS service: two weeks of anonymized logs after which they "randomly sample a small subset for permanent storage". https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/privacy

I had the same reaction so this indeed hints at that I've got wrong expectations. One plus point for privacy, one minus point for handling a beach so badly.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't making accusations of theft and industrial espionage is unpleasant? This kind of accusation in the industry crops up time and time again and I don't think it should be accepted unchallenged, neither between small companies, or large ones. I've seen this claims so many times, people claiming some investors took their deck and gave it to their portfolio companies, people claiming another company copied them. The…

Are you saying I was not pursued/invited and met with Motorola ATAP(Google had bought them in Jan 2013) now Google ATAP in April 2013? I am making this up? I made up this NDA I signed https://ryanspahn.com/motorola-google-Expired-NDA2013.pdf and this letter when Google absorbed ATAP https://ryanspahn.com/google.JPG . Ive got emails from the jerk who invited us out there .. who baited us then said here is the door and…

I don't think you're making it up, it sounds like you had a bad experience, and someone from Motorola biz-dev/m&a was being a jerk, but without knowing how the interaction went, it's not really my place to pass judgement. In a company of 88,000 employees, there's a non-zero probability of getting a bad interviewer.

I'm sorry to hear you had that experience. Where I part company is the added interpretation. If I was in your situation, and had a negative experience, I'm pretty sure I'd be angry, and feel wronged, and feel 'used', it's only natural.

I mean, Dropbox tried to sell themselves to Apple and Steve Jobs didn't like the price, he went on to say 'you dont have product, you have a feature', actually worse than that:

"And so he started trolling us a little bit, saying we're a feature, not a product, and telling us a bunch of things like that we don't control an operating system so we're going to be disadvantaged, we're going to have to figure out distribution deals, which are risky, and sort of a bunch of business-plan critiques. But then he was like, 'Alright, well I guess we're gonna have to go kill you, basically.' Maybe not in those words, but pretty close."

But do I believe Apple "stole" Dropbox? nah, cloud based backups, sync, etc are pretty straightforward, and although there is innovation at the UI and syncing protocol layer, iCloud is not really a Dropbox clone.

BTW, I encourage you to continue to try and innovate around your idea. There may be a use case beyond 'speakers', like emergency alerts, security, think "California earthquake imminent in 10 seconds!". There could also be a use case for synchronized sound based gaming at parties. There's loads more to do, and having had some bad experiences shouldn't discourage you, it kind of comes with the territory of presenting ideas and startups, you really get shit on a lot.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#224

non-paywall version: http://archive.is/rpuA1

Does anyone else get rubbed the wrong way by this sort of irreverent infringement? Even if you have zero concern for journalists’ copyrights, it puts this forum at risk.

Fair use exemption makes specific reference to "purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting" - those are just the first three listed, and all three apply to a HN post.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#225

non-paywall version: http://archive.is/rpuA1

Does anyone else get rubbed the wrong way by this sort of irreverent infringement? Even if you have zero concern for journalists’ copyrights, it puts this forum at risk.

WSJ deserves zero respect.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#226
post #98

>We made Google+ with privacy in mind and therefore keep this API’s log data for only two weeks. That means we cannot confirm which users were impacted by this bug. Wait, so they only keep two weeks worth of logs and within these logs they did not find anyone abusing this flaw. How can they be certain for any time period from two week prior ?

Why would someone abusing this API stop doing so? If nobody did so for the two weeks prior to the fix, it's a very reasonable guess that roughly nobody did so ever.

It doesn't sound like the logs are detailed enough to prove the antecedent, though, so it doesn't really matter if the logic is sound.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#227
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't prove a negative. All you can do is hope that your logs are not tampered with and that they show that nobody used the hole that you are aware of .

Well a little bit of detail as to whether exploiting this bug even creates a log entry might be interesting.

If it does not they have other problems.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#228

non-paywall version: http://archive.is/rpuA1

Does anyone else get rubbed the wrong way by this sort of irreverent infringement? Even if you have zero concern for journalists’ copyrights, it puts this forum at risk.

The other way of looking at it is that it can boost publication revenue and journalist income by driving more traffic to the publication than it would otherwise get, of which some may convert to subscriptions (if the publication can offer sufficient incentive).

Obviously, no user would be able to justify buying subscriptions to every publication linked from HN.

And if there was no paywall bypass, then HN couldn't link to it and it would get no HN traffic and no discussion on HN at all.

Allowing paywall bypass means the publication gets the HN traffic and discussion it wouldn't otherwise get, and the possibility of converting some of that traffic to subscribers who wouldn't otherwise subscribe.

For what it's worth, the owners/operators clearly don't think it puts this forum at risk, as the sharing of paywall bypass links is explicitly allowed/encouraged according to the guidelines and moderator comments.

And the very fact that the publications themselves allow bypass via certain referrers (e.g., Facebook) suggests they don't have a problem with it.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#229

non-paywall version: http://archive.is/rpuA1

Does anyone else get rubbed the wrong way by this sort of irreverent infringement? Even if you have zero concern for journalists’ copyrights, it puts this forum at risk.

Nah, no cares about SJW... oh, pardon me, I meant WSJ.

Re: Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public

#230

non-paywall version: http://archive.is/rpuA1

Does anyone else get rubbed the wrong way by this sort of irreverent infringement? Even if you have zero concern for journalists’ copyrights, it puts this forum at risk.

I'm not a regular reader of WSJ so why would I subscribe just to read one article?
Post reply on HN