Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

gamesradar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#71

Post by dylan604 »

alickz wrote: post #19
kris_lujanovic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its from one of the content moderators. they are all hired and managed through recruiting agency. there was over 10k of us while I was there. and most people are just kids with one week of on boarding doing short term contract. whoever did it is blackballed by biggest recruiting agency in the world. way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points

> way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points "Google says it was "non-intentional" because they only showed it to a friend", I don't think they purposely leaked it for internet clout

Great, "it was only a friend" is the same thing anyone says when caught revealing a secret that was meant to "remain between us". That's a load of horseshit for an excuse.

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#72

Post by aramova »

shadowgovt wrote: post #30

This sort of thing is extremely bad news for Google. One of the open secrets about how advertising works in the modern era is that brand synergy demands planning years in advance. Google employees, back in the day, could see the marvel cinematic universe release plan out to several years if they knew where to look, as well as console launch dates, major product releases, and other things of that nature. This is becau…

Well that's what happens when you put a McKinsey shrill at the helm and let them go on a mass hiring then mass layoff spree while bending a knee to activist investors to lower wages. You end up with employees who dgaf.

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#73

Post by randomdata »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #70
randomdata wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, expectation is the standard. The standard is that anyone who is an agent of the entity you have entrusted is also considered trustworthy. After all, giving full trust to an entity you only trust partially is nonsensical. However, you make a fair point that it is reasonable to assume that entities you trust are willing to go above and beyond, for various reasons.

> Right, expectation is the standard. The standard is that anyone who is an agent of the entity you have entrusted is also considered trustworthy. To clarify, I am the second person here telling you that that is not the expectation. The expectation , and/or the right thing to do , and/or "the standard we expect them to meet" , is that Google follows the standard security principle of least privileged access, meaning…

The expectation is placed on the entity the trust is given to. Unless you go to individuals directly, there can be so such expectation on individuals. There may be an assumption that the entity you have given trust to do will "do the right thing" with individual agents, but it there is no such expectation as you have already trusted the entity, meaning that you have already trusted its agents. What have you gained by keeping information away from people you have already entrusted with the information? If you cannot find the trust to give them, why are you giving it?

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#74

Post by andrepd »

b3lvedere wrote: post #13
kris_lujanovic wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

its from one of the content moderators. they are all hired and managed through recruiting agency. there was over 10k of us while I was there. and most people are just kids with one week of on boarding doing short term contract. whoever did it is blackballed by biggest recruiting agency in the world. way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points

I never knew Youtube did child labour?

Have you seen those toy review channels or those family youtubers?

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#75

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

randomdata wrote: post #73
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Right, expectation is the standard. The standard is that anyone who is an agent of the entity you have entrusted is also considered trustworthy. To clarify, I am the second person here telling you that that is not the expectation. The expectation , and/or the right thing to do , and/or "the standard we expect them to meet" , is that Google follows the standard security principle of least privileged access, meaning…

The expectation is placed on the entity the trust is given to. Unless you go to individuals directly, there can be so such expectation on individuals. There may be an assumption that the entity you have given trust to do will "do the right thing" with individual agents, but it there is no such expectation as you have already trusted the entity, meaning that you have already trusted its agents. What have you gained by…

Your own expectation is covered in the second paragraph of my previous post, I am describing the expectation, which is what I and the other poster have described. You speak of this as an assumption, but you have it backwards: given google's history of failing to meet our expectations, we assume they will continue to fail to do so.

Your question of "why" boils down to asking, What is to be gained by employing the principles of least privileged access, as well as proper authorization, auditing, and alerting? The answer to that question is beyond the scope of this post, but I trust that you understand or can understand the benefits of these principles.

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#76

Post by randomdata »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #75
randomdata wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The expectation is placed on the entity the trust is given to. Unless you go to individuals directly, there can be so such expectation on individuals. There may be an assumption that the entity you have given trust to do will "do the right thing" with individual agents, but it there is no such expectation as you have already trusted the entity, meaning that you have already trusted its agents. What have you gained by…

Your own expectation is covered in the second paragraph of my previous post, I am describing the expectation, which is what I and the other poster have described. You speak of this as an assumption , but you have it backwards: given google's history of failing to meet our expectations , we assume they will continue to fail to do so. Your question of "why" boils down to asking, What is to be gained by employing the pr…

> I am describing the expectation

Yes, the expectation is that Google, and therefore its agents, are trustworthy. You would not give them your information otherwise. Who happens to working at Google at some moment in time is irrelevant. You have chosen to entrust an entity with a revolving door of individuals. Absolutely no expectation of who will access the information is defined, fundamentally. If that is important, you must go to the individuals directly.

You might assume that Google will "do the right thing" by working to keep the information away from those who don't need it, but that is entirely up to them. Hell, they might even do that, but then cycle all of their agents through positions where access is needed... In the end, if they choose not to, nothing about the trust expectation has changed.

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#77

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

randomdata wrote: post #76
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your own expectation is covered in the second paragraph of my previous post, I am describing the expectation, which is what I and the other poster have described. You speak of this as an assumption , but you have it backwards: given google's history of failing to meet our expectations , we assume they will continue to fail to do so. Your question of "why" boils down to asking, What is to be gained by employing the pr…

> I am describing the expectation Yes, the expectation is that Google, and therefore its agents, are trustworthy. You would not give them your information otherwise. Who happens to working at Google at some moment in time is irrelevant. You have chosen to entrust an entity with a revolving door of individuals. Absolutely no expectation of who will access the information is defined, fundamentally. If that is important…

> Yes, the expectation is that Google can be trusted.

That is your expectation, not the expectation. 2 people have told you what the expectation is. You, 1 person, have shared that you have a different expectation. This is okay, but you aren't speaking for us, or for the majority here, only yourself.*

The expectation is the one that we have cited, nothing less. It's great if they meet your expectations, but that's not good enough for us.*

Speaking only for myself here, I believe there's a reason that the principles I cited exist, rather than 'the company lets any employee access anything with no permission or record of it'.

* – paragraphs void and I am wrong when majority changes: I've gotta listen to the people, too! ;)

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#78

Post by vel0city »

mrguyorama wrote: post #47
b3lvedere wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never knew Youtube did child labour?

Kids are literally dying in Tyson affiliated chicken plants down south and nobody is going to prison. Why WOULDN'T youtube use child labor if it's cheaper?

Are you arguing we should just assume every single employer uses child labor because some places use child labor?

I take it you're also arguing Y Combinator also uses child labor? Mozilla? Spotify? Your employer? I mean, why WOULDN'T they?

I imagine you probably probably hire child labor as well. After all, why WOULDN'T you?

Its probably child labor that keeps this site running. After all, why WOULDN'T they hire kids to keep this site up?

Or maybe there are reasons why people avoid child labor in many places.

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#79

Post by lotsofpulp »

duped wrote: post #48
erremerre wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My favourite are the one that leaked a tank data on a discord just to prove that they were right.

The number of state secrets protected by a 20 year old E-4 whose only motivation is to not get chewed out (and/or jail) is probably staggering.

Being prosecuted and imprisoned by the federal government is far more motivation than being terminated from a low paying job.

Re: Nintendo leak:employee accessing private YouTube videos

#80

Post by beeboobaa3 »

pixl97 wrote: post #14
beeboobaa3 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so youtube content moderators can just view anyone's private videos willy nilly?

Yes, this is typically how moderation works on any platform. Unless it is encrypted it's not "private".

No, it's not. Typically moderators can view content that needs moderation, i.e. is visible to other users. There is no reason to give them access to all private videos, which are different from unlisted.
Post reply on HN