5 ms·

I really disagree with this. Google has extremely strict safeguards in place to prevent eg. employee Joe from accessing ex-girlfriend Mary's Gmail. Very few pe

by nfm 10y ago

I really disagree with this. Google has extremely strict safeguards in place to prevent eg. employee Joe from accessing ex-girlfriend Mary's Gmail. Very few people would have full access to individuals' Google accounts. This kind of privacy breach would be very damaging to Google. Niantic is a tiny startup with around 50 employees. I would expect most developers within the team would have full access to the production database, or would be given access if they had a need for it. It's unlikely that there's any oversight over who can access data - it's just a 'game'. Where are their backups stored? Are they encrypted? Who has access to the decryption keys? We don't know, but I would bet any amount of money that their systems are vastly less secure than Google's are. The relationship between Google and Niantic isn't relevant as to whether they are capable of keeping these credentials secure.

knodi123 10y ago
> Google has extremely strict safeguards in place to prevent eg. employee Joe from accessing ex-girlfriend Mary's Gmail I know a bit about google's internal privacy safeguards (including how long they've been in place), and I know a bit (nothing that wasn't in the news) about the NSA's internal privacy safeguards from a certain point in time. Obviously I don't know what it's like at the NSA today, but it's worth laughing (or crying) at the fact that there was a time when Google placed more restrictions and security in place to protect its users from rogue employees than the NSA did. Not to get too political.
- anf 10y ago
  That's because the NSA does a lot more thorough background checks and has a nation-centered mission, while Google hires people relatively unchecked and of all nationalities and all over the world.
  - knodi123 10y ago
    And in terms of abuse (i.e. LOVEINT), which strategy do you think has proven to be more sound? Hiring only good people, as verified by a thorough background check? Or hiring probably good people, and then using robust checks and balances anyway?

by nfm 10y ago

knodi123 10y ago

> Google has extremely strict safeguards in place to prevent eg. employee Joe from accessing ex-girlfriend Mary's Gmail I know a bit about google's internal privacy safeguards (including how long they've been in place), and I know a bit (nothing that wasn't in the news) about the NSA's internal privacy safeguards from a certain point in time. Obviously I don't know what it's like at the NSA today, but it's worth laughing (or crying) at the fact that there was a time when Google placed more restrictions and security in place to protect its users from rogue employees than the NSA did. Not to get too political.

anf 10y ago
That's because the NSA does a lot more thorough background checks and has a nation-centered mission, while Google hires people relatively unchecked and of all nationalities and all over the world.
- knodi123 10y ago
  And in terms of abuse (i.e. LOVEINT), which strategy do you think has proven to be more sound? Hiring only good people, as verified by a thorough background check? Or hiring probably good people, and then using robust checks and balances anyway?