5 ms·
Are you joking? It provides no specific action they're taking to prevent this type of thing in the future, and it's internally inconsistent (who are "the peopl
by dogecoinbase 8y ago
Are you joking? It provides no specific action they're taking to prevent this type of thing in the future, and it's internally inconsistent (who are "the people whose accounts we intended to disable" who they "will not deactivate their account and they will be able to access Slack when they return to countries or regions for which no blocking is required"?).
I've spent the day messaging and talking with friends who work within Slack in an engineering capacity who feel, frankly, betrayed by the organization. Slack advertises itself internally as an engineering-driven company and on the security side, has an incredibly elaborate system of internal controls that I have espoused emulations of during my consulting that, and I am being very specific without being too specific here, were bypassed to perform these account bans. Slack's security team was bypassed. Slack's internal controls were contravened. Slack has demonstrated that they can access every location you've ever logged in from and will cheerfully give that information up for the pleasure of the US Government without it even being required of them.
- DonHopkins 8y ago>I've spent the day messaging and talking with friends ... Some of us use Slack because we have work to do.
- dogecoinbase 8y ago>I've spent the day messaging and talking with friends ... Some of us use Slack because we have work to do. How noble in reason! Some of us were banned without justification from our jobs today via the unjustified unilateral action of a private company. In fact, my job is to help companies secure their internal communications. So, talking with people about this was my job. What was yours?
- DonHopkins 8y agoNot shilling cryptocurrencies. ;)
- opless 8y agoBest comment I've read this year.
- dogecoinbase 8y agoOk, that was great.
- wpietri 8y agoWhat in the world makes you think they will "cheerfully give that information up for the pleasure of the US Government without it even being required of them"? They're required by law not to do business in certain countries. They were over-broad and over-aggressive in how they tried to follow that law, unnecessarily shutting down accounts, which was certainly a fuckup. But I don't see any indication that they gave information to the US government.