3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
    - staticassertion 4y ago
      Of course. Many people are not supporting a starving family, many people can take other jobs. I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area. > 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. I disagree. Gmail is an incredibly secure mail service and is a fine way to perform some communications - in particular, while something like Signal may be ideal, Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact. Even if it weren't, it really doesn't matter, journalists do use it and they are targeted. But again, journalists are just an example, there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail - protecting them is something one could very easily consider to be ethical.
      - cookie_monsta 4y ago
        > I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families. I'm not disputing that finding another job is a PITA. The grey area that I am trying to demonstrate is that every single Googler has more career options than "continue working for Google" or "let my family starve to death" > Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact I have no idea what this means. An email is an email, no? > there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail No argument there. And I'm not saying that securing their inboxes isn't worthy work. My original comment was directed to the hypothetical journalists who use Gmail for professional communication - it had nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of other users. They should be using E2E encrypted communications with confidential sources and encouraging their sources to do the same. That's just part of being a responsible professional in that line of work.
        staticassertion 4y ago
        > I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families Literally just the very post before by you: > 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. This is incoherent. Whatever point you're trying to make is not coming across and doesn't seem important. The initial point I made was that "is anyone excited to work for Google?" is a hilariously naive point of view both in terms of the obvious fact that they often are, and also in terms of a basic ethical framework. I gave examples. Nitpicking them isn't important because there are a million other examples.

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.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    Of course. Many people are not supporting a starving family, many people can take other jobs. I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area. > 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. I disagree. Gmail is an incredibly secure mail service and is a fine way to perform some communications - in particular, while something like Signal may be ideal, Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact. Even if it weren't, it really doesn't matter, journalists do use it and they are targeted. But again, journalists are just an example, there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail - protecting them is something one could very easily consider to be ethical.
    - cookie_monsta 4y ago
      > I'm only trying to demonstrate there is a grey area I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families. I'm not disputing that finding another job is a PITA. The grey area that I am trying to demonstrate is that every single Googler has more career options than "continue working for Google" or "let my family starve to death" > Gmail can have a much better UX around initial contact I have no idea what this means. An email is an email, no? > there are hundreds of millions of people using gmail No argument there. And I'm not saying that securing their inboxes isn't worthy work. My original comment was directed to the hypothetical journalists who use Gmail for professional communication - it had nothing to do with the hundreds of millions of other users. They should be using E2E encrypted communications with confidential sources and encouraging their sources to do the same. That's just part of being a responsible professional in that line of work.
      - staticassertion 4y ago
        > I'm not disputing that people are supporting their families Literally just the very post before by you: > 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. This is incoherent. Whatever point you're trying to make is not coming across and doesn't seem important. The initial point I made was that "is anyone excited to work for Google?" is a hilariously naive point of view both in terms of the obvious fact that they often are, and also in terms of a basic ethical framework. I gave examples. Nitpicking them isn't important because there are a million other examples.