7 ms·

I had the opposite impression of Google employees on the Never Again pledge: https://lobste.rs/s/91ah4l/neveragain_tech/comments/yk8l4o#c_yk8l4o https://lobste

I had the opposite impression of Google employees on the Never Again pledge: https://lobste.rs/s/91ah4l/neveragain_tech/comments/yk8l4o#c_yk8l4o https://lobste.rs/s/91ah4l/neveragain_tech/comments/yk8l4o#c... It's almost a joke for people to sign a pledge about not collecting data that can be used against minorities then support either Google or Facebook in any way. They're probably the biggest threat to them that's existed in a long time if they're compelled to share their data. The billions made on their practices ensures they won't change them any time soon. If anything, they've both gotten worse over time in invasiveness and lock-in. Yet, Never Again people will continue making products/services for Google to help them maintain market share doing more of that Orwell shit they do. Quite the moral core [with associated pay, benefits, and fun job]. Whereas, the immigration claim is believable because it impacts them personally and financially if critical people are immigrants. They have quite a bit of skin in the game. It wouldn't surprise me if they'd fight that.

tptacek 10y ago
Your impression is that people who sign a pledge to leave their jobs before helping mass deportation or a Muslim registry have less moral authority than those that don't? That's, uh, quite the contrarian take.
- leereeves 10y ago
  GP didn't say that. Not: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than those who don't. Rather: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than people who aren't helping collect data on anyone.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I didn't perceive it that way, but you're probably right. I shouldn't have taken the bait.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      There was no bait. I disagreed with people supporting surveillance companies on that pledge on Hacker News when it posted. I did on Lobsters citing that. I did again on Hacker News now when you brought it up with pat on back of surveillance, company supporters. I don't bait you back: merely debate with argument and evidence like when I first started doing that here. I try to avoid rhetoric and pure fights much as possible. I count those as failures to be honest.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  My impression is that a Never Collect Data Usable Against Minorities Pledge shouldn't be signed by people supporting exactly that to tune of billions of dollars and nearly as many users under surveillance. Unless they're full of shit. Hell, even The Onion saw how helpful such companies are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 I remember watching it knowing it was satire but most of the benefits were still true. I bet the people against discrimination and such at those locations are still coding away at the algorithms and data stores to make it happen. Easier to put your name on something than to make real sacrifices. Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company.
- 3131s 10y ago
  These people have already helped in creating a Muslim registry, and a many-other-things registry, by way of their participation in Google's massive data collection efforts.
solipsism 10y ago
You feel so strongly and yet you use gmail (according to your profile), associating yourself with them, making use of the free storage space and services, and even augmenting their datasets to a small degree. Perhaps the people who find a way to work at Google and still be against collecting data for malevolent purposes make the same types of rationalizations you have. Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company. At... your gmail address?
- StavrosK 10y ago
  That's quite the tu quoque.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  My post is about people who signed the pledge. I didn't sign it. It was too simplistic & unrealistic once I factored in surveillance companies with their massive, user base. I might actually have to work from within up the management track, in the Android/Chrome team, etc to get improvements. In the process, I'd have contributed to the surveillance tech to make possible the privacy-enhancing improvements to it. I try not to promise what I can't deliver working in moral spaces so complex. Far as Gmail, I use it as an untrusted drop for potentially-malicious traffic with spam filtering and high-availability. Such a setup burdens them more than helps given free email is a loss leader. Dissidents can send me email from anonymous accounts or set up GPG exchanges where I just know them by a key and alias. I also have a private, Swiss-hosted email for users I've vetted to a degree. I pay for that under vote with my wallet concept. Thinking about moving drop address to Fastmail under same concept since I've heard enough feedback about it basically being as good as Gmail. Altogether, Google currently loses money to host my risky emails with anonymous, GPG-protected email available to those that want privacy. Looks morally neutral.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    When you use Gmail, Google will try to identify you and identify the people who email you, and draw connections between you and inferences from your communication. I really don't understand why someone like you who is evidently seriously against surveillance and who values privacy would give Google more ammunition to do that.

tptacek 10y ago

Your impression is that people who sign a pledge to leave their jobs before helping mass deportation or a Muslim registry have less moral authority than those that don't? That's, uh, quite the contrarian take.

leereeves 10y ago
GP didn't say that. Not: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than those who don't. Rather: Google employees who sign the pledge have less moral authority than people who aren't helping collect data on anyone.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I didn't perceive it that way, but you're probably right. I shouldn't have taken the bait.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    There was no bait. I disagreed with people supporting surveillance companies on that pledge on Hacker News when it posted. I did on Lobsters citing that. I did again on Hacker News now when you brought it up with pat on back of surveillance, company supporters. I don't bait you back: merely debate with argument and evidence like when I first started doing that here. I try to avoid rhetoric and pure fights much as possible. I count those as failures to be honest.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
My impression is that a Never Collect Data Usable Against Minorities Pledge shouldn't be signed by people supporting exactly that to tune of billions of dollars and nearly as many users under surveillance. Unless they're full of shit. Hell, even The Onion saw how helpful such companies are: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqggW08BWO0 I remember watching it knowing it was satire but most of the benefits were still true. I bet the people against discrimination and such at those locations are still coding away at the algorithms and data stores to make it happen. Easier to put your name on something than to make real sacrifices. Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company.
3131s 10y ago
These people have already helped in creating a Muslim registry, and a many-other-things registry, by way of their participation in Google's massive data collection efforts.

solipsism 10y ago

You feel so strongly and yet you use gmail (according to your profile), associating yourself with them, making use of the free storage space and services, and even augmenting their datasets to a small degree. Perhaps the people who find a way to work at Google and still be against collecting data for malevolent purposes make the same types of rationalizations you have. Do email me, though, when a story pops up that Google or Facebook got rid of all saved data that could be used to hurt unpopular groups all thanks to such people in the company. At... your gmail address?

StavrosK 10y ago
That's quite the tu quoque.
nickpsecurity 10y ago
My post is about people who signed the pledge. I didn't sign it. It was too simplistic & unrealistic once I factored in surveillance companies with their massive, user base. I might actually have to work from within up the management track, in the Android/Chrome team, etc to get improvements. In the process, I'd have contributed to the surveillance tech to make possible the privacy-enhancing improvements to it. I try not to promise what I can't deliver working in moral spaces so complex. Far as Gmail, I use it as an untrusted drop for potentially-malicious traffic with spam filtering and high-availability. Such a setup burdens them more than helps given free email is a loss leader. Dissidents can send me email from anonymous accounts or set up GPG exchanges where I just know them by a key and alias. I also have a private, Swiss-hosted email for users I've vetted to a degree. I pay for that under vote with my wallet concept. Thinking about moving drop address to Fastmail under same concept since I've heard enough feedback about it basically being as good as Gmail. Altogether, Google currently loses money to host my risky emails with anonymous, GPG-protected email available to those that want privacy. Looks morally neutral.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  When you use Gmail, Google will try to identify you and identify the people who email you, and draw connections between you and inferences from your communication. I really don't understand why someone like you who is evidently seriously against surveillance and who values privacy would give Google more ammunition to do that.