4 ms·
First link[1] I found says otherwise, unless you consider having a plan to collect and analyze email, phone numbers and other information from the payload data
by josefx 5y ago
First link[1] I found says otherwise, unless you consider having a plan to collect and analyze email, phone numbers and other information from the payload data and having internal reviews of the code intended to do just that to be a "configuration error"? People really should stop trusting everything known habitual liars / big corporations say.
[1] https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/ https://www.wired.com/2012/05/google-wifi-fcc-investigation/
- extra88 5y agoThanks, I hadn't seen (or don't recall) those details. Even that story portrays the payload collection as basically one "rogue" engineer's intention, not a part of a business or project plan. While other engineers accessed the collected payload data later, they may have reasonably assumed that if they had it, someone had ok'd it. So rather than a coding error, it was an organizational failure to oversee the engineers' work, the FCC's report says as much.
- josefx 5y agoThe problem is that they followed the classic of denying everything they could until evidence against it turned up: 1. we didn't do it 2. we did it by accident in small cases 3. we did it by accident in worse cases 4. we did it intentionally but one guy was responsible 5. we did it but it was just one rouge dev. team Add to that the unredacted report noting that Google kept delaying and hindering the investigation and it is rather clear that "6. we did it and management was neck deep into it" is more likely than not.