4 ms·

This was how it worked when I worked in admissions during college. You had access to every applicants' information, grades, essays, etc., as well as counselor f

This was how it worked when I worked in admissions during college. You had access to every applicants' information, grades, essays, etc., as well as counselor feedback. But you were told that if you looked up yourself, someone you knew, or any celebrities, then you could be fired. I don't know if there were automated checks for that kind of thing, but everyone knew there was a line you didn't cross.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Whereas folks I worked with at a support vendor for AT&T HomeZone, when that was a thing, regularly looked up celebrities’ private phone numbers in the unified customer systems with no repercussion, despite the same onboarding spiel. HomeZone was unique in that support reps by necessity had access to AT&T, Dish, and Yahoo! (email) CRM, which covers a very broad range of people and activities; I didn’t do the looking, but I overheard a sampling of notables and legislators who subscribed to the “500s” (Dish lingo for porn at the time, don’t know if they’ve moved the channels since). Yahoo! was the only one that limited access reasonably. It always struck me as odd that auditing didn’t pick up that query behavior. For your main job, PeopleSoft would take care of everything and limit you to who you needed to see, but there were a plethora of other systems and places to look. This type of thing certainly isn’t limited to Lyft.
dkarl 9y ago
At Lyft people did think there were automated checks, did know there was a line that shouldn't be crossed, and yet there was rampant abuse. Don't you suspect that many of the students in your position abused their access? I think companies should be responsible for implementing effective security, whether that means preventing improper access or at least detecting it and punishing it after the fact, not just establishing a "culture." The most dangerous people, the ones who commit violent crimes, aren't limited by culture anyway, because they despise norms and have very different perceptions of risk compared to most people. In your case, your fellow student workers might simply have not felt safe sharing their crimes with you. "Naughty" behavior can be taboo yet widespread.
- jamestimmins 9y ago
  Huh, that's an interesting point. Now that you mention it you're probably right that it was more common than I was aware of.
- ams6110 9y ago
  If you have rules but don't enforce any consequences for breaking them, the rules pretty quickly get ignored. If Lyft had fired a few rulebreakers early on, everyone else would know they were serious.
- rmc 9y ago
  > I think companies should be responsible for implementing effective security That's what the EU data protection law requires! And there are high fines, and new abilities coming into force in May!
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fjsolwmv 9y ago
My "elite" college had crisis counselors, student volunteers. Guess what happened if you dated one of them. They searched the counseling files to look for dirt on you.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago

Whereas folks I worked with at a support vendor for AT&T HomeZone, when that was a thing, regularly looked up celebrities’ private phone numbers in the unified customer systems with no repercussion, despite the same onboarding spiel. HomeZone was unique in that support reps by necessity had access to AT&T, Dish, and Yahoo! (email) CRM, which covers a very broad range of people and activities; I didn’t do the looking, but I overheard a sampling of notables and legislators who subscribed to the “500s” (Dish lingo for porn at the time, don’t know if they’ve moved the channels since). Yahoo! was the only one that limited access reasonably. It always struck me as odd that auditing didn’t pick up that query behavior. For your main job, PeopleSoft would take care of everything and limit you to who you needed to see, but there were a plethora of other systems and places to look. This type of thing certainly isn’t limited to Lyft.

dkarl 9y ago

At Lyft people did think there were automated checks, did know there was a line that shouldn't be crossed, and yet there was rampant abuse. Don't you suspect that many of the students in your position abused their access? I think companies should be responsible for implementing effective security, whether that means preventing improper access or at least detecting it and punishing it after the fact, not just establishing a "culture." The most dangerous people, the ones who commit violent crimes, aren't limited by culture anyway, because they despise norms and have very different perceptions of risk compared to most people. In your case, your fellow student workers might simply have not felt safe sharing their crimes with you. "Naughty" behavior can be taboo yet widespread.

jamestimmins 9y ago
Huh, that's an interesting point. Now that you mention it you're probably right that it was more common than I was aware of.
ams6110 9y ago
If you have rules but don't enforce any consequences for breaking them, the rules pretty quickly get ignored. If Lyft had fired a few rulebreakers early on, everyone else would know they were serious.
rmc 9y ago
> I think companies should be responsible for implementing effective security That's what the EU data protection law requires! And there are high fines, and new abilities coming into force in May!

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fjsolwmv 9y ago

My "elite" college had crisis counselors, student volunteers. Guess what happened if you dated one of them. They searched the counseling files to look for dirt on you.