7 ms·

Title is difficult to decipher, here’s what it’s about: > A new report on old privacy incidents [2017] suggests that at least one Nintendo leak came from a Goo

Title is difficult to decipher, here’s what it’s about: > A new report on old privacy incidents [2017] suggests that at least one Nintendo leak came from a Google employee showing off private YouTube videos to a friend.

kris_lujanovic 2y ago
its from one of the content moderators. they are all hired and managed through recruiting agency. there was over 10k of us while I was there. and most people are just kids with one week of on boarding doing short term contract. whoever did it is blackballed by biggest recruiting agency in the world. way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points
- beeboobaa3 2y ago
  so youtube content moderators can just view anyone's private videos willy nilly?
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Yes, this is typically how moderation works on any platform. Unless it is encrypted it's not "private".
    - bombcar 2y ago
      If it's a truly private video, it should be only visible by moderation when logged in as a moderator. If it was an unlisted video, the moderator would just need to know the reference code (URL) for the video, and could share it with anyone.
      - jabroni_salad 2y ago
        As mentioned in the article, the original leak was a screenshot from admin.youtube.com
    - beeboobaa3 2y ago
      No, it's not. Typically moderators can view content that needs moderation, i.e. is visible to other users. There is no reason to give them access to all private videos, which are different from unlisted.
      - pixl97 2y ago
        Yes it is. You can keep saying "no it's not" until the cows come home, but every single bit of unencrypted content (and possibly well known hashes of encrypted content) is subject to moderation on any large corporate property.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    If you have confidential data don't upload it to Youtube, or really anybody else's servers.
  - mike_d 2y ago
    They can view videos they are assigned to review, but they can't just pull up a random private video.
- b3lvedere 2y ago
  I never knew Youtube did child labour?
  - vel0city 2y ago
    In many states its legal for people 16-18 to work, usually with limitations on hours worked per shift/week an what kind of jobs they can do. Even then, many older people in the US will call someone 18-20 "kids", even though they're technically adults. As a US English speaker I took it to mean "a bunch of young and immature people, probably on their first job" when I heard "most people are just kids", not that they're literally hiring 12 year olds or something.
    - tredre3 2y ago
      In all 50 states it is legal for people 16+ to work full time.
      - vel0city 2y ago
        I can't say I know the law in every state so I typically don't say absolutes like that. If that's true, thanks for clarifying/correcting. Also, it looks like you're right for at least the states I normally deal with. Looking back the first job I had started when I was still 15, I must have just blended those shift schedule restrictions during the rest of my time working as 16-17 as well. So yeah, I guess that's probably true.
    - gwbas1c 2y ago
      > Even then, many older people in the US will call someone 18-20 "kids", even though they're technically adults. In my head I felt like my peers in college were "kids". I didn't feel like we were "adults" until we were in our mid-20s.
  - mrguyorama 2y ago
    Kids are literally dying in Tyson affiliated chicken plants down south and nobody is going to prison. Why WOULDN'T youtube use child labor if it's cheaper?
- alickz 2y ago
  > way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points "Google says it was "non-intentional" because they only showed it to a friend", I don't think they purposely leaked it for internet clout
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Great, "it was only a friend" is the same thing anyone says when caught revealing a secret that was meant to "remain between us". That's a load of horseshit for an excuse.
- erremerre 2y ago
  My favourite are the one that leaked a tank data on a discord just to prove that they were right.
  - duped 2y ago
    The number of state secrets protected by a 20 year old E-4 whose only motivation is to not get chewed out (and/or jail) is probably staggering.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      A lot of these tank "leaks" are just PDF's of manuals you can buy on ebay. They're restricted but legal to own. It only becomes illegal when you export them to other countries.
      - duped 2y ago
        I believe what GP is referring to is the Air Force National Guardsman who's going to jail for leaking classified intelligence on a discord server to prove he was right. I don't think it was actually about tanks, just that it happened in a WarFrame discord (or something like that).
    - lotsofpulp 2y ago
      Being prosecuted and imprisoned by the federal government is far more motivation than being terminated from a low paying job.
    - finnthehuman 2y ago
      https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2651728-war-thunder-military-document-leaks https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2651728-war-thunder-military...
- dmix 2y ago
  > whoever did it is blackballed by biggest recruiting agency in the world. way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points I think you're overvaluing the power of recruiting agencies
qwertox 2y ago
"Nintendo leak: Google employee accessing private YouTube videos" would be clearer. Showing those videos "only" to a friend isn't really that relevant.
- randomdata 2y ago
  The friend is quite relevant. There is no expectation of a video stored on a Google system being private to Google employees, but there is an expectation that they will not take that information outside of Google.
  - rrr_oh_man 2y ago
    In practice, bound by agreements is valid until it isn’t
  - throwaway2016a 2y ago
    > There is no expectation of a video stored on a Google system being private to Google employees "No expectation" of it not being available to "some" employees maybe, but there is certainly ways to restrict access to only a need-to-know employees. Ideally no employees at all unless some sort of automated monitoring system flags it or there is an outside report. Just like some social networks, I would "expect" only security and moderation people would have access to profiles but there are always stories of entire companies having unrestricted access. It's unclear from the article where the access boundaries are in this case.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      The private information is shared with Youtube/Google, so the assumption is that anyone who is an agent of Google is in on the secret. If it must only be in the hands of one or a small group of people at Google, you'd best go to those individuals directly, not through the overarching entity of Google as a proxy.
      - throwaway2016a 2y ago

kris_lujanovic 2y ago

its from one of the content moderators. they are all hired and managed through recruiting agency. there was over 10k of us while I was there. and most people are just kids with one week of on boarding doing short term contract. whoever did it is blackballed by biggest recruiting agency in the world. way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points

beeboobaa3 2y ago
so youtube content moderators can just view anyone's private videos willy nilly?
- pixl97 2y ago
  Yes, this is typically how moderation works on any platform. Unless it is encrypted it's not "private".
  - bombcar 2y ago
    If it's a truly private video, it should be only visible by moderation when logged in as a moderator. If it was an unlisted video, the moderator would just need to know the reference code (URL) for the video, and could share it with anyone.
    - jabroni_salad 2y ago
      As mentioned in the article, the original leak was a screenshot from admin.youtube.com
  - beeboobaa3 2y ago
    No, it's not. Typically moderators can view content that needs moderation, i.e. is visible to other users. There is no reason to give them access to all private videos, which are different from unlisted.
    - pixl97 2y ago
      Yes it is. You can keep saying "no it's not" until the cows come home, but every single bit of unencrypted content (and possibly well known hashes of encrypted content) is subject to moderation on any large corporate property.
- jandrese 2y ago
  If you have confidential data don't upload it to Youtube, or really anybody else's servers.
- mike_d 2y ago
  They can view videos they are assigned to review, but they can't just pull up a random private video.
b3lvedere 2y ago
I never knew Youtube did child labour?
- vel0city 2y ago
  In many states its legal for people 16-18 to work, usually with limitations on hours worked per shift/week an what kind of jobs they can do. Even then, many older people in the US will call someone 18-20 "kids", even though they're technically adults. As a US English speaker I took it to mean "a bunch of young and immature people, probably on their first job" when I heard "most people are just kids", not that they're literally hiring 12 year olds or something.
  - tredre3 2y ago
    In all 50 states it is legal for people 16+ to work full time.
    - vel0city 2y ago
      I can't say I know the law in every state so I typically don't say absolutes like that. If that's true, thanks for clarifying/correcting. Also, it looks like you're right for at least the states I normally deal with. Looking back the first job I had started when I was still 15, I must have just blended those shift schedule restrictions during the rest of my time working as 16-17 as well. So yeah, I guess that's probably true.
  - gwbas1c 2y ago
    > Even then, many older people in the US will call someone 18-20 "kids", even though they're technically adults. In my head I felt like my peers in college were "kids". I didn't feel like we were "adults" until we were in our mid-20s.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  Kids are literally dying in Tyson affiliated chicken plants down south and nobody is going to prison. Why WOULDN'T youtube use child labor if it's cheaper?
alickz 2y ago
> way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points "Google says it was "non-intentional" because they only showed it to a friend", I don't think they purposely leaked it for internet clout
- dylan604 2y ago
  Great, "it was only a friend" is the same thing anyone says when caught revealing a secret that was meant to "remain between us". That's a load of horseshit for an excuse.
erremerre 2y ago
My favourite are the one that leaked a tank data on a discord just to prove that they were right.
- duped 2y ago
  The number of state secrets protected by a 20 year old E-4 whose only motivation is to not get chewed out (and/or jail) is probably staggering.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    A lot of these tank "leaks" are just PDF's of manuals you can buy on ebay. They're restricted but legal to own. It only becomes illegal when you export them to other countries.
    - duped 2y ago
      I believe what GP is referring to is the Air Force National Guardsman who's going to jail for leaking classified intelligence on a discord server to prove he was right. I don't think it was actually about tanks, just that it happened in a WarFrame discord (or something like that).
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    Being prosecuted and imprisoned by the federal government is far more motivation than being terminated from a low paying job.
  - finnthehuman 2y ago
    https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2651728-war-thunder-military-document-leaks https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/2651728-war-thunder-military...
dmix 2y ago
> whoever did it is blackballed by biggest recruiting agency in the world. way to get your life crazy difficult over reddit points I think you're overvaluing the power of recruiting agencies

qwertox 2y ago

"Nintendo leak: Google employee accessing private YouTube videos" would be clearer. Showing those videos "only" to a friend isn't really that relevant.

randomdata 2y ago
The friend is quite relevant. There is no expectation of a video stored on a Google system being private to Google employees, but there is an expectation that they will not take that information outside of Google.
- rrr_oh_man 2y ago
  In practice, bound by agreements is valid until it isn’t
- throwaway2016a 2y ago
  > There is no expectation of a video stored on a Google system being private to Google employees "No expectation" of it not being available to "some" employees maybe, but there is certainly ways to restrict access to only a need-to-know employees. Ideally no employees at all unless some sort of automated monitoring system flags it or there is an outside report. Just like some social networks, I would "expect" only security and moderation people would have access to profiles but there are always stories of entire companies having unrestricted access. It's unclear from the article where the access boundaries are in this case.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    The private information is shared with Youtube/Google, so the assumption is that anyone who is an agent of Google is in on the secret. If it must only be in the hands of one or a small group of people at Google, you'd best go to those individuals directly, not through the overarching entity of Google as a proxy.
    - throwaway2016a 2y ago