4 ms·
I think the point here is "...used internal security tools...", Not the particulars of the message she was pushing.
by remus 6y ago
I think the point here is "...used internal security tools...", Not the particulars of the message she was pushing.
- ouid 6y agoIf that was the point, then why was the other bit included in such obvious service to the "point"?
- HopHazard 6y agoYeah we would wish that the mods sucked our crucks by any haphazardly generated comment. Such is the hacker news. Such is life. On Tracker, Danger, News.
- acituan 6y agoThat is the stated reason but we all know that is not the real reason. If they added an ascii art of a dinosaur or a message on another topic to that internal security tool, they wouldn't have been fired, probably not even a slap on the wrist, at most an annoyed "take that off" request.
- scarmig 6y ago> we all know that is not the real reason No, that is not true. Some of us take security seriously.
- acituan 6y agoCan you contextualize who you are, so that I can better understand “us”? You mention seriousness as an absolute virtue, but if it fires people for a harmless, easily correctable mistake in an internal tool, it is just misguided and an excuse especially if it “happens” to serve some ulterior motive.
- orangecat 6y agoIt's not harmless. Google is very concerned about internal security, and putting irrelevant messages in security notifications makes them more likely to be ignored in the future. Your ASCII dinosaur hypothetical is a good way to think about it, and I wouldn't be surprised or outraged if that also resulted in the offender being fired.
- zeckalpha 6y agoSecurity is a broad topic and can include avoiding legal liabilities.