3 ms·

How did you read it that way? I don't see how the sentence implies Google employees getting user data would not be considered a privacy risk.

deogeo 8y ago
That's not how I meant it. I edited the post, hopefully the meaning is clearer now.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  You still seem to be saying the same thing? You're worked up that the sentence is saying that unauthorized employees getting user data is not something they would consider a leak, and I'm trying to figure out how that sentence implied that conclusion, because I don't see how it implies that.
  - deogeo 8y ago
    I re-phrased it yet again. I did assume that they counted unauthorized internal access as a leak as well. Their PR cleverly draws focus away from whether Google should have that data in the first place. That, somehow, if a multinational corporation knows everything about me, my privacy is not compromised, so long as a dreaded unauthorized employee doesn't get the data. Unauthorized by Google, not by the person being spied upon...
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      Oh THAT's what you mean? That you don't want Google to have your data? The sentence is talking about the conditions under which employees are fired. Why would Google fire its employees as a result of you not wanting Google to have your data? Heck, the entire article is about access to unauthorized internal documents. How is your point even relevant to the whole topic at all?
      - deogeo 8y ago
        My point is a comment on Google's carefully crafted PR. Edit: That it might be off-topic when viewed narrowly in the context of firing employees, does not mean that the frame of debate should be left unexamined. When every other action of Google increases 'risk to privacy', it's difficult for me to swallow their phrasing.
        mehrdadn 8y ago
        What? Their response is carefully crafted PR because they didn't say something totally unreasonable about a completely irrelevant issue to the topic under discussion?

deogeo 8y ago

That's not how I meant it. I edited the post, hopefully the meaning is clearer now.

mehrdadn 8y ago
You still seem to be saying the same thing? You're worked up that the sentence is saying that unauthorized employees getting user data is not something they would consider a leak, and I'm trying to figure out how that sentence implied that conclusion, because I don't see how it implies that.
- deogeo 8y ago
  I re-phrased it yet again. I did assume that they counted unauthorized internal access as a leak as well. Their PR cleverly draws focus away from whether Google should have that data in the first place. That, somehow, if a multinational corporation knows everything about me, my privacy is not compromised, so long as a dreaded unauthorized employee doesn't get the data. Unauthorized by Google, not by the person being spied upon...
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    Oh THAT's what you mean? That you don't want Google to have your data? The sentence is talking about the conditions under which employees are fired. Why would Google fire its employees as a result of you not wanting Google to have your data? Heck, the entire article is about access to unauthorized internal documents. How is your point even relevant to the whole topic at all?
    - deogeo 8y ago
      My point is a comment on Google's carefully crafted PR. Edit: That it might be off-topic when viewed narrowly in the context of firing employees, does not mean that the frame of debate should be left unexamined. When every other action of Google increases 'risk to privacy', it's difficult for me to swallow their phrasing.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        What? Their response is carefully crafted PR because they didn't say something totally unreasonable about a completely irrelevant issue to the topic under discussion?