3 ms·

> I just find it really hard to believe that anyone would be sincerely excited to work at a place like Google. > but it just seems like an unethical move Whet

> I just find it really hard to believe that anyone would be sincerely excited to work at a place like Google. > but it just seems like an unethical move Whether you can empathize with it or not you must realize that of course people are sincerely excited to work at Google? As for the ethics, at Google security you may be in a position to have some of the largest impact on the most people's personal security. You can say "oh but Google sells ads based on that data" - OK, and you might have a serious problem with that, but the person who's making sure that malicious 3rd parties can't read the GMail accounts of journalists probably doesn't see that as a deal breaker. A lot of people also don't have the luxury to make these choices based on a purely ethical basis. If you're sending money back to your family back home is it a straightforward ethical question of "well Google sells ads, so my family has to starve" ?

hulitu 4y ago
> but the person who's making sure that malicious 3rd parties can't read the GMail accounts of journalists But the friendly 3rd party has no issue reading the GMail accounts of journalists. Remember the "Doctor" incident some months ago ?
- staticassertion 4y ago
  No, I don't know what you are referring to.
  - hulitu 4y ago
    When dad got arrested because he sent pictures of his child to the doctor.
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      Not trying to be an asshole but can you just provide a source and try to make a clear point? Otherwise this conversation is like pulling teeth.
      - cookie_monsta 4y ago
        I'm guessing the story was this: https://archive.ph/78Pla https://archive.ph/78Pla and the point is that it's cold comfort getting protected from MITM when the person protecting you openly acts as a MITM
        staticassertion 4y ago
        Yes, this is just how CSAM detection works.
cookie_monsta 4y ago
I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. And to the journalists out there who are hypothetically using gmail to communicate with confidential sources: please stop.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  > I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. Not always. > And to the journalists out there who are hypothetically using gmail to communicate with confidential sources: please stop. Uh, no.
  - cookie_monsta 4y ago
    > Not always Really? What circumstances lead from someone going from Googler to unemployable? > Uh, no Uh... because it's the best option available?
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      > Really? What circumstances lead from someone going from Googler to unemployable? I didn't say unemployable. But maybe other jobs aren't paying as well or you don't have time to shop around. > Uh... because it's the best option available? It's a pretty good oen
      - cookie_monsta 4y ago
        > maybe other jobs aren't paying as well or you don't have time to shop around Sure, but there's a lot of distance between "I would have to take a pay cut" or "interviewing is time-consuming"(?) and "I have to do this or my family will starve to death". If that seems like a high bar to pass, that's the one that you set. I'm not necessarily criticising people's choice to work for Google. I'm definitely not saying that every Googler should quit immediately. What I am saying is that there are people out there legitimately doing jobs because the only other option is their family going hungry. Silicon Valley software engineers are not in that category. > It's a pretty good oen But if we're talking about journalists' ability to protect the information and identity of their confidential sources (again, a bar that you set), of all the options available, Gmail is not a pretty good one. And if you are dealing with information whose security can affect people's lives and livelihoods, then "pretty good" isn't the sort of standard you should be working towards anyway.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hulitu 4y ago

> but the person who's making sure that malicious 3rd parties can't read the GMail accounts of journalists But the friendly 3rd party has no issue reading the GMail accounts of journalists. Remember the "Doctor" incident some months ago ?

staticassertion 4y ago
No, I don't know what you are referring to.
- hulitu 4y ago
  When dad got arrested because he sent pictures of his child to the doctor.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    Not trying to be an asshole but can you just provide a source and try to make a clear point? Otherwise this conversation is like pulling teeth.
    - cookie_monsta 4y ago
      I'm guessing the story was this: https://archive.ph/78Pla https://archive.ph/78Pla and the point is that it's cold comfort getting protected from MITM when the person protecting you openly acts as a MITM
      - staticassertion 4y ago
        Yes, this is just how CSAM detection works.

cookie_monsta 4y ago

I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. And to the journalists out there who are hypothetically using gmail to communicate with confidential sources: please stop.

staticassertion 4y ago
> I suspect that if you work at Google you have plenty of other career options before reaching the point where your family has to starve. Not always. > And to the journalists out there who are hypothetically using gmail to communicate with confidential sources: please stop. Uh, no.
- cookie_monsta 4y ago
  > Not always Really? What circumstances lead from someone going from Googler to unemployable? > Uh, no Uh... because it's the best option available?
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    > Really? What circumstances lead from someone going from Googler to unemployable? I didn't say unemployable. But maybe other jobs aren't paying as well or you don't have time to shop around. > Uh... because it's the best option available? It's a pretty good oen
    - cookie_monsta 4y ago
      > maybe other jobs aren't paying as well or you don't have time to shop around Sure, but there's a lot of distance between "I would have to take a pay cut" or "interviewing is time-consuming"(?) and "I have to do this or my family will starve to death". If that seems like a high bar to pass, that's the one that you set. I'm not necessarily criticising people's choice to work for Google. I'm definitely not saying that every Googler should quit immediately. What I am saying is that there are people out there legitimately doing jobs because the only other option is their family going hungry. Silicon Valley software engineers are not in that category. > It's a pretty good oen But if we're talking about journalists' ability to protect the information and identity of their confidential sources (again, a bar that you set), of all the options available, Gmail is not a pretty good one. And if you are dealing with information whose security can affect people's lives and livelihoods, then "pretty good" isn't the sort of standard you should be working towards anyway.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]