3 ms·
This is why our policy at Fog Creek is to explicitly get permission from users before accessing their data. It's enforced by the sys admins (which we screen mor
by tghw 15y ago
This is why our policy at Fog Creek is to explicitly get permission from users before accessing their data. It's enforced by the sys admins (which we screen more extensively during the hiring process), who give temporary access to the person who needs it once the user has given their permission. When we're done, the sys admins remove access to that account again.
It's a pretty painless process (we have snippets to ask permission from the user and shortcuts to request access from the sys admins) and it helps prevent both willful and accidental leakage or modification of our users' data.
- jonknee 15y agoIs there anything stopping the sys admin from doing the snooping?
- tghw 15y agoUltimately, someone needs to have the keys, and they do, which is why they go through additional screening. Since there's a whole team, they would either have to collude or cover their tracks very well. Considering a major part of their job is keeping our data and our users' data safe, a breach like that would not be taken lightly. So ultimately, it may be possible for one to snoop on our users, but it's much easier to trust (and keep tabs on) a small, well screened team than the entire company. Speaking personally, I can say that I would (and do) absolutely trust my own data to our sys admins.
- sunchild 15y agoIt doesn't really matter if you put someone through extensive interviews and then hire them, or if you use a third party who can't afford to lose its reputation, it all comes back to trust, which is why David's post is so on-point.
- dhh 15y agoWhat additional screening do you put your system administrators through? Are we talking security clearances and background checks? Definitely curious to hear the specifics.
- tghw 15y agoI've not been directly involved in the hiring of a sys admin, since I'm a dev, but I do know that we at least do background checks.
- dhh 15y agoCan you ask? I'm curious to learn what these background checks entail. Also, if they actually do prevent bad apple's from joining, why not do them to programmers as well (given that they have the power to program backdoors etc into systems).
- jonknee 15y agoI'd introduce some more checks and balances if you can. Even Google got burned by a rogue engineer snooping on people, a lengthy interview isn't enough.
- RyanMcGreal 15y agoQuis custodiet ipsos custodes?
- walkon 15y agoDo they have to go through this same process when looking at certain logging data, such as, web server GET requests? Those would show file names.
- drewcrawford 15y agoI have to interject here, because the theoretical example in this thread is what would happen if somebody had plans to compete with Basecamp in Basecamp, as some sort of hypothetical case. I actually have a bug open in FogBugz called "Build a better FogBugz" where we discuss in some length its shortcomings for our workflow and how to fix them. It's not exactly an active project, but it will probably be when I get sufficiently fed up, and I would have no problem organizing its development in FogBugz. The point is, if you can't trust the people who are writing your tools, why are you using their tools in the first place?