I think this unduly conflates his displeasure at the automated scanning of emails to target advertising and the NSA etc. bulk access to data. The former doesn't make the latter any more likely. All webmail services must hold their customers' emails, and they are therefore open to being read by a government or third party. Users could encrypt their emails, but it's very hard to do this while also making logging in and accessing anywhere fast easy for all users.
Why I won’t work for Google
41–50 of 225 posts
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#42A better Google is one you pay for and whose income and subsequently motivations align with the customer, not third parties.
The idea of Google being a virtual personal assistant who knows everything about you but who you can trust to keep that information private is very cool and I think more aligned with where Google really wants to go. The problem is that they need to rely on advertising for now which means you'll never really trust what that PA says and what it is telling others about you.
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#43Some searching shows he is supportive of #anakata, and maybe people can read up.
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
In fighting overbroad warrants, via the National Security Letters. Having NSLs at all significantly increases consumer distrust in Google, and gives them literally zero gains in return. It even costs them work, if you're looking at the small stuff. They don't get anything out of it. Edit: Clarified what NSL means.
NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Also, fighting them takes work too. Much more work (done by more highly-paid individuals) than complying with them. The PR angle may make it a net gain, but I do…
> NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant.
Are we sure that's all NSL's cover? I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court). Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval.
Regardless, while the two(a subpoena and a warrant) are different, in this case their nature is more than a bit similar, considering subpoenas generally are used to produce information, whereas warrants are to be able to reasonably search for information- which on a server, the two are only differentiated by who is accessing the data and how.
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#45The primary reason I won't work for Google is because I'm nowhere near smart enough. But I like to tell myself that the ethical shortcuts they've taken in pursuit of the almighty dollar are a good secondary reason. It's just that I don't need a secondary reason, so yay, consequence-free ethics!
Although I agree with the thrust of your comment, re. intelligence, I will nevertheless downvote you for being petulant.
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
People tend to forget we are Google's product. Not their customers. Advertisers are their customers. Plenty of tech companies don't sell souls for a living, therefore by working there you may not be required to also sacrifice yours for a paycheck. Flip side; there are those who believe ads aren't evil. Google builds a lot of interesting tech. It's probably a great place for engineers. But one look at their financial…
The products is ad space, not the users
If the product was the ad space, Google would be out of business.
The product is the personal data Google packages up and sells to advertisers.
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#47I can't access the linked blogpost because the website is offline, but from the comments here I understand that the main reason the author is invoking for not working at Google is because of Snowden's revelations and Google implication with the NSA. I think this is strange, we knew way before Snowden's revelations what Google did with the privacy of their users. That in itself should be enough to not want to work the…
cache:qnrq.se/why-i-wont-work-for-google/
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#48Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Also, fighting them takes work too. Much more work (done by more highly-paid individuals) than complying with them. The PR angle may make it a net gain, but I do…
> NSLs and warrants are completely different things. Warrants are (or can be) for the contents of messages, and must be signed by a judge. NSLs only cover metadata, and only require an FBI agent's signature. An NSL is a type of subpoena, not a type of warrant. Are we sure that's all NSL's cover? I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturn…
>I've been told repeatedly that we can't be told what is required under the NSLs by their very nature(despite being overturned by the Supreme Court).
NSL power is defined by law, and is limited to metadata, not content. I suspect what they meant is that specific details about whose information is being requested, and how many requests are received, can't be released.
>Also, I was under the impression a subpoena also requires a judge's approval.
An administrative subpoena is a type of subpoena that does not need to be signed by a judge. An NSL is a type of admin subpoena that the FBI uses for national security matters, but the FBI uses admin subpoenas in other investigations, too. Many other federal agencies also have admin subpoena power, and some states grant it to their agencies as well.
Re: Why I won’t work for Google
#50All mainstream modern technology companies are in a no win tragic situation. They are accountable to the state which overrides their ability to make any kind of actual independent decisions when the interests of the state are at stake. Going against this would be an exercise in futility and you may well end up in prison for doing so.
Getting angry at them for what they are forced at gunpoint to do is just wasted energy, though I do agree with seeking alternatives free from the influence of the state and not patronising companies that are forced to operate in those interests purely from the perspective of pragmatism.
All they can do is stick to the letter of the law. I think the harder the state clamps down and the more totalitarian it becomes, the more black market alternatives for mainstream services will come into being and the more pressure there will be for a truly free parallel economy to flourish.