18 ms·

The generic answer to these concerns is usually the following: if a (well-known, very scrutinized) company such as Google writes that kind of promise in public

The generic answer to these concerns is usually the following: if a (well-known, very scrutinized) company such as Google writes that kind of promise in public documentation that is part of a binding contract with paying customers, there is a good chance they won't purposefully break that agreement, and risk being caught by an audit, just for the sake of accessing someone's personal data.

yabot 7y ago
That's great, but if it's only true until it isn't. The moments when that idea is false (however rare) are the life altering, permanent moments that result in irrevocable ruin for whomsoever might dare trust the promises and honor of [faceless corporation]. The truth is twofold. One: if the barrier can be melted according to magic rules, then it is no real barrier. It is a sweet candy coating that melts in your mouth, not in your hands. Two: if a corporation is made of many incidental strangers who happen to share an employer for overlapping moments in time, and the system has at least one authorization bypass, then so does the audit trail. If you don't think corporations implode, suffer from disgruntled criminal employees, sell out to rivals, go completely bankrupt, or land themselves in jail, then bet all of your secrets on the idea that what they tell you is 100% truth.
- smueller1234 7y ago
  You know, we, working at Google, are people, right? We have moral and ethical standards just like everyone else. Many (but not all) of us also aren't locked in to Google and can find employment elsewhere easily but choose not to. The following isn't about Google as such: Thing with a disgruntled criminal employee is that they don't usually come in bunches and don't collude because they can't easily identify each other. Which means they can't generally commit such acts and then also corrupt a whole 'nother department to cover it up.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    Trusting your privacy on the moral and ethical compass of every individual at giant corporations is incredibly foolish. If this is a wide-spread belief at Google, it only further erodes my trust in the company.
    - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
      It's not every employee, but rather something like any. As in: any employee with access to user data can check that their actions are logged correctly. This doesn't protect against government action, and not at Google leadership specifically targetting you. But it does prevent the (rather common) abuse of such access by regular employees.
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    > We have moral and ethical standards just like everyone else. No, you don't. If that were true then you wouldn't be working at Google. Google has already passed the threshold were you can claim bonus points in the ethics department just for working there. That ship sailed long ago.
  - journalctl 7y ago
    > You know, we, working at Google, are people, right? We have moral and ethical standards just like everyone else. Could’ve fooled me. Or maybe your standards are just particularly low. Do you mind explaining where surveillance capitalism fits into your principled worldview?
- tylerl 7y ago
  Yep, a solution exists through. Here's how you get there: * Strong identity: employees must be strongly identified before acting. * Multi-party authz: nobody ever acts alone. One person can't be trusted, two people might be, M of N effectively represents the company. * Noisy security: making a change to security parameters notifies all relevant parties in a way that intentionally avoids notification fatigue. You can't sneak a change through. * Full auditability: even after the fact you can readily unravel what was done, seeing what the old state was, what was changed, who made the change, and who approved it. Get those points, and a few other minor details, and this larger problem actually becomes tractible.
bigiain 7y ago
"If a well known agency such as the FBI writes that kind of promise in congressional hearings ... " https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/08/fbi_spying_abuse/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/08/fbi_spying_abuse/ I'm not entirely sure the old generic answers apply these days...
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  There's at least one major difference here, which is that corporate entities don't have sovereign immunity. The CIA and NSA are immune from consequences when they systematically abuse our rights.
  - zachrose 7y ago
    That may be a de facto outcome but I don’t think there is a de jure legal basis there.
otakucode 7y ago
Who audits Google? Serious question.
- sverhagen 7y ago
  This suggests they are SOC compliant, among other things, and been audited by an independent accounting firm: https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056694?hl=en https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056694?hl=en SOC seems to be the gold standard in terms of what enterprises are asking for, these days. Not that it addresses all the concerns as discussed here, but it does probably start to answer your question.
- joshuamorton 7y ago
  According to this: https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056650?hl=en https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056650?hl=en E&Y does (apparently), and Google is compliant with some ISO standard for software security. See "Does giving Google access to my data create a security risk? How does Google ensure that its employees do not pose a threat?"
koheripbal 7y ago
Your assumption is that the company will knowingly access your data, but the more likely scenario is that a rogue employee working for your competitor (or simply looking to start their own startup) will access and steal your data/code/client list.

yabot 7y ago

That's great, but if it's only true until it isn't. The moments when that idea is false (however rare) are the life altering, permanent moments that result in irrevocable ruin for whomsoever might dare trust the promises and honor of [faceless corporation]. The truth is twofold. One: if the barrier can be melted according to magic rules, then it is no real barrier. It is a sweet candy coating that melts in your mouth, not in your hands. Two: if a corporation is made of many incidental strangers who happen to share an employer for overlapping moments in time, and the system has at least one authorization bypass, then so does the audit trail. If you don't think corporations implode, suffer from disgruntled criminal employees, sell out to rivals, go completely bankrupt, or land themselves in jail, then bet all of your secrets on the idea that what they tell you is 100% truth.

smueller1234 7y ago
You know, we, working at Google, are people, right? We have moral and ethical standards just like everyone else. Many (but not all) of us also aren't locked in to Google and can find employment elsewhere easily but choose not to. The following isn't about Google as such: Thing with a disgruntled criminal employee is that they don't usually come in bunches and don't collude because they can't easily identify each other. Which means they can't generally commit such acts and then also corrupt a whole 'nother department to cover it up.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  Trusting your privacy on the moral and ethical compass of every individual at giant corporations is incredibly foolish. If this is a wide-spread belief at Google, it only further erodes my trust in the company.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
    It's not every employee, but rather something like any. As in: any employee with access to user data can check that their actions are logged correctly. This doesn't protect against government action, and not at Google leadership specifically targetting you. But it does prevent the (rather common) abuse of such access by regular employees.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > We have moral and ethical standards just like everyone else. No, you don't. If that were true then you wouldn't be working at Google. Google has already passed the threshold were you can claim bonus points in the ethics department just for working there. That ship sailed long ago.
- journalctl 7y ago
  > You know, we, working at Google, are people, right? We have moral and ethical standards just like everyone else. Could’ve fooled me. Or maybe your standards are just particularly low. Do you mind explaining where surveillance capitalism fits into your principled worldview?
tylerl 7y ago
Yep, a solution exists through. Here's how you get there: * Strong identity: employees must be strongly identified before acting. * Multi-party authz: nobody ever acts alone. One person can't be trusted, two people might be, M of N effectively represents the company. * Noisy security: making a change to security parameters notifies all relevant parties in a way that intentionally avoids notification fatigue. You can't sneak a change through. * Full auditability: even after the fact you can readily unravel what was done, seeing what the old state was, what was changed, who made the change, and who approved it. Get those points, and a few other minor details, and this larger problem actually becomes tractible.

bigiain 7y ago

"If a well known agency such as the FBI writes that kind of promise in congressional hearings ... " https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/08/fbi_spying_abuse/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/10/08/fbi_spying_abuse/ I'm not entirely sure the old generic answers apply these days...

joshuamorton 7y ago
There's at least one major difference here, which is that corporate entities don't have sovereign immunity. The CIA and NSA are immune from consequences when they systematically abuse our rights.
- zachrose 7y ago
  That may be a de facto outcome but I don’t think there is a de jure legal basis there.

otakucode 7y ago

Who audits Google? Serious question.

sverhagen 7y ago
This suggests they are SOC compliant, among other things, and been audited by an independent accounting firm: https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056694?hl=en https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056694?hl=en SOC seems to be the gold standard in terms of what enterprises are asking for, these days. Not that it addresses all the concerns as discussed here, but it does probably start to answer your question.
joshuamorton 7y ago
According to this: https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056650?hl=en https://support.google.com/googlecloud/answer/6056650?hl=en E&Y does (apparently), and Google is compliant with some ISO standard for software security. See "Does giving Google access to my data create a security risk? How does Google ensure that its employees do not pose a threat?"

koheripbal 7y ago

Your assumption is that the company will knowingly access your data, but the more likely scenario is that a rogue employee working for your competitor (or simply looking to start their own startup) will access and steal your data/code/client list.