4 ms·

Well, if an employee can access that data then they can access it. The whole point of Google calendars is that they are wide open, so I find it hard to believe

Well, if an employee can access that data then they can access it. The whole point of Google calendars is that they are wide open, so I find it hard to believe that Google has always taken information security very seriously.

fredgrott 7y ago
I would think calendar impl is a separate issue from monitoring data access security and than responding to violations by informing the employee that they are violations you are conflating the two issues
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
Google takes the view that its employees are all responsible adults, who can be trusted to handle information responsibly without using it to harass people or leaking it to journalists. Activists have made a concentrated effort to subvert this, and it may well be that it's not true anymore, but up until a few years ago it worked pretty well.
NovemberWhiskey 7y ago
>Well, if an employee can access that data then they can access it. Yes; but just because an employee can access data doesn't mean that they can just do anything they like with it, does it? The complaint from Google seems to be that access was used to harass, leak personal information and surveil the actions of other employees. If that's true, then "well, you gave me access" doesn't seem like a strong defense.
- itronitron 7y ago
  Yes, the memo from Google makes it seem that, however they don't just come out and say it clearly... probably because they can't, or can't yet, confirm who leaked what if anything. An interesting question for Google to answer would be how many Google employees have accessed/crawled all the internal data. Considering the sort of talent, curiosity, and technical skills that Google hires I would expect that the four fired workers are not unique in that regard.
  - ddalex 7y ago
    They imply it. Perhaps they can show that the crawled data matches exactly the leak, but they can't find the smoking gun among these 4 - the twin robbers paradox.

fredgrott 7y ago

I would think calendar impl is a separate issue from monitoring data access security and than responding to violations by informing the employee that they are violations you are conflating the two issues

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

Google takes the view that its employees are all responsible adults, who can be trusted to handle information responsibly without using it to harass people or leaking it to journalists. Activists have made a concentrated effort to subvert this, and it may well be that it's not true anymore, but up until a few years ago it worked pretty well.

NovemberWhiskey 7y ago

>Well, if an employee can access that data then they can access it. Yes; but just because an employee can access data doesn't mean that they can just do anything they like with it, does it? The complaint from Google seems to be that access was used to harass, leak personal information and surveil the actions of other employees. If that's true, then "well, you gave me access" doesn't seem like a strong defense.

itronitron 7y ago
Yes, the memo from Google makes it seem that, however they don't just come out and say it clearly... probably because they can't, or can't yet, confirm who leaked what if anything. An interesting question for Google to answer would be how many Google employees have accessed/crawled all the internal data. Considering the sort of talent, curiosity, and technical skills that Google hires I would expect that the four fired workers are not unique in that regard.
- ddalex 7y ago
  They imply it. Perhaps they can show that the crawled data matches exactly the leak, but they can't find the smoking gun among these 4 - the twin robbers paradox.