3 ms·

From the perspective of a user this sounds positive, but do you have any idea why they don't store more data? Worry about public backlash? Lawsuits over data br

From the perspective of a user this sounds positive, but do you have any idea why they don't store more data? Worry about public backlash? Lawsuits over data breaches? There would seem to be a financial incentive to store more given how cheap storage is and the fact that seemingly unimportant data could be useful in future models.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
I mean, I'm new and just a lowly engineer, so I can't speak too much for the company. I do work in analytics / logging, so I do have pretty decent insights into our different storage systems and logging policies. The people that I interact with view data as a liability, not an asset. I think this is because of lawsuits mostly. We've been bitten by a few big ones. But also, storage is expensive, and even storing a Boolean on one type of log, we could get billions of those logs per day. It starts to add up and cost money. I think we're pretty confident in our security and take it very, very, very seriously. So I don't think we're worried about necessarily a specific piece of data being stolen. If anything is stolen at all, that would be viewed as an existential catastrophe. So I don't think there's too many pieces of data that we'd care about specifically. But again, I'm not anyone important here. And I'm new. And I don't know that much.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  If you're actually a new engineer you might want to check your company policy on communicating details of internal systems in public; your external communications people probably don't allow you to speak about such things ... on the other hand, if you are allowed to talk about such things then you're probably just a persona adopted by someone in external comms. Take care!
  - onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
    It's not a trade secret that we store data. I'm not giving away anything that isn't already public information. This is literally me giving a summary of our Terms of Use. As far as I know, I'm allowed to say that: people I work with tend to be liberal. As far I know, I'm also allowed to say that: people I work with tend to view data as a liability not an asset. It's also public information that Google receives billions of requests per day. For me to extrapolate on that and say that even storing a single bit of data on those logs starts to add up and cost a lot of money isn't a trade secret either. It's common sense.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Upthread you appeared to be making definite statements about exactly what information Google shares, you also mention working for the company which suggests you're speaking authoritatively and in a way that is endorsed by the company (and that's why external comms people don't like it). A couple of actionable statements - you don't store anything for more than 30 days (that doesn't mesh with analytics data which might be de-anonymisable IMO). - you don't do any facial tracking. Which doesn't surprise me too much but I can imagine a future trial where a barrister is saying "your engineers claimed in public you didn't do this sort of tracking" and that providing extras jeopardy for damages. It's not my area, however, I appreciate the openness. Thanks for sharing.

onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago

I mean, I'm new and just a lowly engineer, so I can't speak too much for the company. I do work in analytics / logging, so I do have pretty decent insights into our different storage systems and logging policies. The people that I interact with view data as a liability, not an asset. I think this is because of lawsuits mostly. We've been bitten by a few big ones. But also, storage is expensive, and even storing a Boolean on one type of log, we could get billions of those logs per day. It starts to add up and cost money. I think we're pretty confident in our security and take it very, very, very seriously. So I don't think we're worried about necessarily a specific piece of data being stolen. If anything is stolen at all, that would be viewed as an existential catastrophe. So I don't think there's too many pieces of data that we'd care about specifically. But again, I'm not anyone important here. And I'm new. And I don't know that much.

pbhjpbhj 7y ago
If you're actually a new engineer you might want to check your company policy on communicating details of internal systems in public; your external communications people probably don't allow you to speak about such things ... on the other hand, if you are allowed to talk about such things then you're probably just a persona adopted by someone in external comms. Take care!
- onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
  It's not a trade secret that we store data. I'm not giving away anything that isn't already public information. This is literally me giving a summary of our Terms of Use. As far as I know, I'm allowed to say that: people I work with tend to be liberal. As far I know, I'm also allowed to say that: people I work with tend to view data as a liability not an asset. It's also public information that Google receives billions of requests per day. For me to extrapolate on that and say that even storing a single bit of data on those logs starts to add up and cost a lot of money isn't a trade secret either. It's common sense.
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    Upthread you appeared to be making definite statements about exactly what information Google shares, you also mention working for the company which suggests you're speaking authoritatively and in a way that is endorsed by the company (and that's why external comms people don't like it). A couple of actionable statements - you don't store anything for more than 30 days (that doesn't mesh with analytics data which might be de-anonymisable IMO). - you don't do any facial tracking. Which doesn't surprise me too much but I can imagine a future trial where a barrister is saying "your engineers claimed in public you didn't do this sort of tracking" and that providing extras jeopardy for damages. It's not my area, however, I appreciate the openness. Thanks for sharing.