3 ms·
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
by deogeo 7y 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 7y agoOh 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 7y agoMy 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 7y agoWhat? Their response is carefully crafted PR because they didn't say something totally unreasonable about a completely irrelevant issue to the topic under discussion?