5 ms·

An individual's work day being monitored and leaked is definitely personal privacy. It's not like some new Android leaked, these violations were directed agains

An individual's work day being monitored and leaked is definitely personal privacy. It's not like some new Android leaked, these violations were directed against specific people and aspects of their lives were leaked to outside parties.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Right, but consider the source of the information we're seeing here. Google is not in a position where they're encouraged to spin this story in a positive light for the employees in question. The calendar notification feature does not discriminate, but it also doesn't automatically leak data to an external source. So if, hypothetically, one believed a coworker was involved with a project the company was trying to keep hushed up (such as a search engine built conforming to the design constraints of the Chinese government, or an object recognition tool for military applications), one could keep an eye on the evolution of that project by turning on calendar notifications and observing what meetings that coworker is invited to. But if that coworker also puts "Doctor's appointment" on their work calendar, the observer will of course be notified about that also if the event is made (internal) public. Now, once the observer is notified, they may have chosen to leak to an external source "Hey, a name-notable VP appears to be having a meeting on Thursday titled 'PROJECT: DEFINITELY NOT FACILITATING CHINESE CENSORSHIP'." That doesn't imply they chose to then leak "And they have a doctor's appointment Friday." Google has made the claim the individual in question set up notifications, and those notifications may have caught medical appointments and family activites. Google has made the separate claim that some information was leaked externally. Google has notably not made the claim that doctor's appointments, family activities, etc. were leaked externally. ... and the privacy concerns we honor for people's personal lives do not necessarily extend to the work they're quietly doing on things the public may find unacceptable.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  It doesn't matter if it's family appointments or work appointments. Keeping tabs on someone like that is a violation of personal privacy.
  - shadowgovt 7y ago
    We'll have to agree to disagree that a person's personal privacy protection should categorically extend to whether they're helping build the next generation of drone warfare target-acquisition software.
    - ddalex 7y ago
      Or perhaps to help build vaccines, should one be opposed on personal preferences to vaccinations. See the slippery slope there?
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Is someone violating FDA law while building the vaccines? If so, we should know about it and protect a person's right to build a paper trail. Building vaccines is unlikely to be an activity in violation of the law; exporting algorithms to China is far more delicate. We protect whistleblowers for a reason.
        fulafel 7y ago
        The algorithm export bit was pioneered by EFF In https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Encryption protocols are no longer classified as "munitions." Software is, however, still regulated by export control (https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html). This is currently a hot topic, as China has used facial recognition software in ongoing persecution of the Uighur minority. The US government responded by blacklisting several Chinese firms, and selling software to those firms could land an individual in jail (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-rights-technology-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-righ...). I'm not saying Google did anything illegal in its liaison with the Chinese government to build out a search engine to their specifications. But it is exactly the sort of business venture that needs to be carefully monitored and that whistleblower protections are intended to guard.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Right, but consider the source of the information we're seeing here. Google is not in a position where they're encouraged to spin this story in a positive light for the employees in question. The calendar notification feature does not discriminate, but it also doesn't automatically leak data to an external source. So if, hypothetically, one believed a coworker was involved with a project the company was trying to keep hushed up (such as a search engine built conforming to the design constraints of the Chinese government, or an object recognition tool for military applications), one could keep an eye on the evolution of that project by turning on calendar notifications and observing what meetings that coworker is invited to. But if that coworker also puts "Doctor's appointment" on their work calendar, the observer will of course be notified about that also if the event is made (internal) public. Now, once the observer is notified, they may have chosen to leak to an external source "Hey, a name-notable VP appears to be having a meeting on Thursday titled 'PROJECT: DEFINITELY NOT FACILITATING CHINESE CENSORSHIP'." That doesn't imply they chose to then leak "And they have a doctor's appointment Friday." Google has made the claim the individual in question set up notifications, and those notifications may have caught medical appointments and family activites. Google has made the separate claim that some information was leaked externally. Google has notably not made the claim that doctor's appointments, family activities, etc. were leaked externally. ... and the privacy concerns we honor for people's personal lives do not necessarily extend to the work they're quietly doing on things the public may find unacceptable.

malvosenior 7y ago
It doesn't matter if it's family appointments or work appointments. Keeping tabs on someone like that is a violation of personal privacy.
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  We'll have to agree to disagree that a person's personal privacy protection should categorically extend to whether they're helping build the next generation of drone warfare target-acquisition software.
  - ddalex 7y ago
    Or perhaps to help build vaccines, should one be opposed on personal preferences to vaccinations. See the slippery slope there?
    - shadowgovt 7y ago
      Is someone violating FDA law while building the vaccines? If so, we should know about it and protect a person's right to build a paper trail. Building vaccines is unlikely to be an activity in violation of the law; exporting algorithms to China is far more delicate. We protect whistleblowers for a reason.
      - fulafel 7y ago
        The algorithm export bit was pioneered by EFF In https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-established-code-speech/ https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/remembering-case-estab...
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Encryption protocols are no longer classified as "munitions." Software is, however, still regulated by export control (https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html https://www.millercanfield.com/resources-alerts-845.html). This is currently a hot topic, as China has used facial recognition software in ongoing persecution of the Uighur minority. The US government responded by blacklisting several Chinese firms, and selling software to those firms could land an individual in jail (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-rights-technology-xinjiang.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/business/china-human-righ...). I'm not saying Google did anything illegal in its liaison with the Chinese government to build out a search engine to their specifications. But it is exactly the sort of business venture that needs to be carefully monitored and that whistleblower protections are intended to guard.