5 ms·
@jvanegue: > there is a CISO position to fill at @facebook I hear @lcamtuf: > Waiting for NYTimes to tell me why I am leaving Google first. This little exch
by jfasi 9y ago
@jvanegue:
> there is a CISO position to fill at @facebook I hear
@lcamtuf:
> Waiting for NYTimes to tell me why I am leaving Google first.
This little exchange speaks volumes about what's happening in the the media regarding the tech industry: one company behaves badly and then all get tarred and feathered. Facebook's security leadership starts jumping ship, and when someone analogous from Google, a completely different organization with a completely different (i.e. existent) moral compass and set of security practices leaves his post for unstated reasons at about the same time, the world assumes a similar scandal is on the way.
- Analemma_ 9y agoHas the New York Times actually published an article about this? Until that happens I think you’re denouncing a phenomenon that doesn’t exist.
- dmix 9y agoI think you're missing the joke here...
- dpark 9y agoI don’t. Nothing about jfasi’s comment reads like a joke.
- dpark 9y agoWaited too long and can't edit: jfasi works at Google and seems to be expressing his honest opinion when he says that they have a "different (i.e. existent) moral compass". He's not making the joke that Google is the same as Facebook and the reason Zelewski is leaving must be a data scandal.
- Angostura 9y ago> the world assumes a similar scandal is on the way. I see no-one assuming that.
- thathappened 9y agoI am. This morning qanon said FBI opened an investigation on him and his site opens a virus only on chrome, as of this morning.
- musage 9y agoGoogle and Facebook both love to hover up all data they can lay hands on, love to insert themselves as middlemen, and are crawling with marketing speak. As for the moral compass, remember how Eric Schmidt was eaten alive by a horde of upset Google employees after smugly declaring privacy dead? Me neither. Your overall point still stands, I just disagree that Google is remotely pure.
- antirez 9y ago> a completely different (i.e. existent) moral compass You mean, the company which basically turned "free services for all your data and info" something at massive scale?
- jonny_eh 9y agoIt's all relative. A compass is still a compass.
- tptacek 9y agoYou say that line speaks volumes, I say it's a throwaway joke very much in character with Zalewski's twitter feed. This is part of the problem of linking directly to individual tweets as front page news on HN.
- forapurpose 9y ago> This little exchange speaks volumes about what's happening in the the media regarding the tech industry: one company behaves badly and then all get tarred and feathered. Perhaps that's perfectly fair, and perhaps everyone has a responsibility for the standards and behavior in their community. That would apply especially to Google, a leader in the community. To the degree the public views the standards (including laws and regulations) as insufficient because of what Facebook has done, perhaps they are correct. And it won't be changed without Google's direct involvement; the public might wonder, why hasn't Google seen to these issues already (if they have, it's largely been ineffective). If fraud is rife on Wall Street, is it wrong to hold Goldman Sachs accountable regardless of their direct involvement? Is it plausible that Goldman Sachs is not directly involved, given their size and influence? Doesn't Goldman Sachs have a responsibility to fix the problem, regardless, at least as a leader? (Thanks to dpark for providing essential context about the parent comment: The author works at Google. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16640453 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16640453 )