4 ms·

Have you seen this one from Google from earlier this year (https://blog.google/products/news/google-commitment-supporting-journalism/ https://blog.google/produc

• rhacker 5y ago
  Wow, yikes indeed. This kind of thing reminds me of ebay from last year: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/six-former-ebay-employees-charged-aggressive-cyberstalking-campaign-targeting-natick https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/six-former-ebay-employees...
• fumar 5y ago
  What about this is bad? Attacking Microsoft?
• romwell 5y ago
  This from Kent "need-to-know" Walker? AKA the guy that single-handedly turned Google's culture from transparency-first to siloing-first by making looking at "need-to-know" information a fireable offense[1]. The Catch-22 here being, of course, that you don't know that you didn't need to know until you know. That's to say, the only way to know if you have violated this policy is by violating it. The result was, unsurprisingly, that where sharing permissions for documentation were default company-wide earlier, it quickly became "you need to know the right people to ask to get access to it". Google, with its mission to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful", thus made its own technical documents unsearchable in internal engines (and thus, disorganized), inaccessible, and therefore, useless. Everything that drops from that person's mouth is toxic. [1]https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/google-execs-internal-email-on-data-leak-policy-rattles https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/google...