5 ms·

> "All I did was make a popup to share the labor notice Google has to share with its workers" Does not mean rewriting the content of webpages, or having "root

> "All I did was make a popup to share the labor notice Google has to share with its workers" Does not mean rewriting the content of webpages, or having "root at google.com". It's better if you'd stop such speculation. The reality is much more pedestrian than what you describe: the person that was retaliated against only wrote simple, inert, strings of plain text. That text was not injected anywhere, and there was no arbitrary code involved. In fact, everything was safe, and went through the usual security controls. The only "danger" in having that, is that people can read it. Ultimately, it's laughable how you think that informing other coworkers about the NLRB is some kind of politically extreme agenda. It's clear that you have an axe to grind

thu2111 6y ago
It went through the usual security controls yet she was immediately fired for doing it? Really? Do you understand how that sounds? Please do explain how someone makes a message appear in your browser when you visit a particular website, without having access to a highly privileged browser extension? That can at minimum monitor the URLs you're visiting? I honestly really hope you aren't on the Google security team, because you seem to be missing the issue here. Someone who had a high level of access was fired for violating basic trust, apparently with the collaboration of her coworkers. What other things could this person have done to advance her political goals by subverting her access for things it wasn't meant for? Outsiders can't know. All they can see is that the company doesn't have a grip on its own workforce. That is not confidence inspiring.
- berdario 6y ago
  > it went through the usual security controls yet she was immediately fired for doing it? Really? Do you understand how that sounds? Yes, that's crazy... And that's exactly why people have been angry at the retaliation > Please do explain... To get more details, the appropriate thing to do is to draft a post that explains how these things are accomplished at Google and get it approved for publication by the legal review team. I've never done it and, while I don't exclude that I might do it, it probably won't happen soon.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    Argh, being fired for this isn't crazy. What kind of "security control" allows changes to security systems that aren't for the purposes of improving security? Whatever controls you're talking about are clearly not controls of the sort a normal auditor would recognise.

thu2111 6y ago

It went through the usual security controls yet she was immediately fired for doing it? Really? Do you understand how that sounds? Please do explain how someone makes a message appear in your browser when you visit a particular website, without having access to a highly privileged browser extension? That can at minimum monitor the URLs you're visiting? I honestly really hope you aren't on the Google security team, because you seem to be missing the issue here. Someone who had a high level of access was fired for violating basic trust, apparently with the collaboration of her coworkers. What other things could this person have done to advance her political goals by subverting her access for things it wasn't meant for? Outsiders can't know. All they can see is that the company doesn't have a grip on its own workforce. That is not confidence inspiring.

berdario 6y ago
> it went through the usual security controls yet she was immediately fired for doing it? Really? Do you understand how that sounds? Yes, that's crazy... And that's exactly why people have been angry at the retaliation > Please do explain... To get more details, the appropriate thing to do is to draft a post that explains how these things are accomplished at Google and get it approved for publication by the legal review team. I've never done it and, while I don't exclude that I might do it, it probably won't happen soon.
- thu2111 6y ago
  Argh, being fired for this isn't crazy. What kind of "security control" allows changes to security systems that aren't for the purposes of improving security? Whatever controls you're talking about are clearly not controls of the sort a normal auditor would recognise.