7 ms·

This isn’t really what happened, you know. I think this is the “game of telephone” effect in action. It was a configuration change to an extension already inst

This isn’t really what happened, you know. I think this is the “game of telephone” effect in action. It was a configuration change to an extension already installed by google onto employee computers. Hardly injecting malware.

knorker 6y ago
I know. I think what I said is a fair description. I boggles the mind how someone could think this is ethical, and can defend this.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  What boggles the mind is how you can think that's a fair description. I stated to you that it wasn't malware, and you said "I know." How can it possibly be fair to paint something as malware if you "know" it wasn't? It's not even "like" malware - the whole point of the software was to inject notices that Google wanted its employees to see when they visited sites. That's the whole reason it exists! Calling it "basically [...] malware" paints it as evil and bad by association, completely overlooking the fact that Google itself wanted that extension installed and the only thing done here was add another site to the list of sites that got a pop-up. If you don't agree with what was done, fine. But don't call it a "fair description"; it's not remotely fair.
  - knorker 6y ago
    So you are defending this as ethical and not something to obviously be fired for? If yes, then there's nothing more to add. The mechanism was there, but this person abused it. Deliberately. But yes, it is fair. Given the technical ability to inject JS or text, this person went around checks, to do what they knew was absolutely not allowed nor what the system was designed for, abusing the system. Who's to say next time there would not be JS reporting who goes where? Maybe there's a counter how many times this was shown? What is they'd made a mistake? What if they'd broken browsing for the whole company?
    - drewbug01 6y ago
      > So you are defending this as ethical and not something to obviously be fired for? Not at all - you're presuming my argument. I certainly have opinions on that subject and we could talk about them if you want - but I'm not arguing that it is or isn't ethical. What I'm saying, specifically, is that by definition it isn't malware, and it's false to claim it's "basically malware." That "basically" does a lot of work, and it serves to put any ethical argument into a losing position from the very outset by forcing the other person to first defend malware (an untenable position) and then to make their point. > The mechanism was there, but this person abused it. Deliberately. We could debate whether or not it was "abuse" - but the NLRB seems to disagree (the complaint is up, if you want to read it [1]). I think that carries a lot of importance. > to do what they knew was absolutely not allowed nor what the system was designed for, abusing the system. Again - you're claiming this was against the design of the system. That makes it hard to debate in good faith, because by all accounts the system operated exactly as designed! It was designed to show a notice to employees when visiting certain sites, and was installed and approved by Google management before the incident happened. If you keep claiming it wasn't "what the system was designed for," then you're not arguing in good faith. You're trying to paint it as malware, as something bad by design - but on a technical level, it operated precisely the way that Google management intended. That can't be malware, unless it took some other effect in addition (which it did not). The debate is really about "is the message she configured it to display right or wrong", but we can't have that if you keep insisting that she coded some malware and surreptitiously installed it on people's computers. That's just mud-slinging - it's honestly a lie. It isn't truthful. Nobody - not even Google - is claiming that it is malware. I'm more than happy to debate the ethics of the message she configured or the ethics of "changing the configuration without management approval" or even "disagreeing with what your managers tell you to believe," but I can't honestly engage in debate about this if you keep claiming it's "malware." > Who's to say next time there would not be JS reporting who goes where? Maybe there's a counter how many times this was shown? > What is they'd made a mistake? What if they'd broken browsing for the whole company? What if she transformed into a werewolf and ate our babies?! We should grab some torches and run her out of town! I say that because this is the textbook definition of a "slippery slope" argument. Some slopes truly are slippery, but I don't see any reason to answer those questions - there is no reason to believe she intended to do any of those things, and there's no reason to beleive she didn't test out her change like any good engineer. 1. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22140676/CPT.20_CA_252802.CCNOH.docx_redacted.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22140676/C...

knorker 6y ago

I know. I think what I said is a fair description. I boggles the mind how someone could think this is ethical, and can defend this.

drewbug01 6y ago
What boggles the mind is how you can think that's a fair description. I stated to you that it wasn't malware, and you said "I know." How can it possibly be fair to paint something as malware if you "know" it wasn't? It's not even "like" malware - the whole point of the software was to inject notices that Google wanted its employees to see when they visited sites. That's the whole reason it exists! Calling it "basically [...] malware" paints it as evil and bad by association, completely overlooking the fact that Google itself wanted that extension installed and the only thing done here was add another site to the list of sites that got a pop-up. If you don't agree with what was done, fine. But don't call it a "fair description"; it's not remotely fair.
- knorker 6y ago
  So you are defending this as ethical and not something to obviously be fired for? If yes, then there's nothing more to add. The mechanism was there, but this person abused it. Deliberately. But yes, it is fair. Given the technical ability to inject JS or text, this person went around checks, to do what they knew was absolutely not allowed nor what the system was designed for, abusing the system. Who's to say next time there would not be JS reporting who goes where? Maybe there's a counter how many times this was shown? What is they'd made a mistake? What if they'd broken browsing for the whole company?
  - drewbug01 6y ago
    > So you are defending this as ethical and not something to obviously be fired for? Not at all - you're presuming my argument. I certainly have opinions on that subject and we could talk about them if you want - but I'm not arguing that it is or isn't ethical. What I'm saying, specifically, is that by definition it isn't malware, and it's false to claim it's "basically malware." That "basically" does a lot of work, and it serves to put any ethical argument into a losing position from the very outset by forcing the other person to first defend malware (an untenable position) and then to make their point. > The mechanism was there, but this person abused it. Deliberately. We could debate whether or not it was "abuse" - but the NLRB seems to disagree (the complaint is up, if you want to read it [1]). I think that carries a lot of importance. > to do what they knew was absolutely not allowed nor what the system was designed for, abusing the system. Again - you're claiming this was against the design of the system. That makes it hard to debate in good faith, because by all accounts the system operated exactly as designed! It was designed to show a notice to employees when visiting certain sites, and was installed and approved by Google management before the incident happened. If you keep claiming it wasn't "what the system was designed for," then you're not arguing in good faith. You're trying to paint it as malware, as something bad by design - but on a technical level, it operated precisely the way that Google management intended. That can't be malware, unless it took some other effect in addition (which it did not). The debate is really about "is the message she configured it to display right or wrong", but we can't have that if you keep insisting that she coded some malware and surreptitiously installed it on people's computers. That's just mud-slinging - it's honestly a lie. It isn't truthful. Nobody - not even Google - is claiming that it is malware. I'm more than happy to debate the ethics of the message she configured or the ethics of "changing the configuration without management approval" or even "disagreeing with what your managers tell you to believe," but I can't honestly engage in debate about this if you keep claiming it's "malware." > Who's to say next time there would not be JS reporting who goes where? Maybe there's a counter how many times this was shown? > What is they'd made a mistake? What if they'd broken browsing for the whole company? What if she transformed into a werewolf and ate our babies?! We should grab some torches and run her out of town! I say that because this is the textbook definition of a "slippery slope" argument. Some slopes truly are slippery, but I don't see any reason to answer those questions - there is no reason to believe she intended to do any of those things, and there's no reason to beleive she didn't test out her change like any good engineer. 1. https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22140676/CPT.20_CA_252802.CCNOH.docx_redacted.pdf https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22140676/C...