9 ms·

The executives should face jail time. That would certainly light a fire under Google's ass to finally "do no evil".

inlined 7y ago
Sadly mid-level employees would probably be the ones going to jail. The tech lead and/or PM sign off on compliance. I used to joke that one of my responsibilities was to put my freedom at stake. None of my products violate GDPR in any way I could conceive, but I’d hate to be handed down a mandate to do so. Both not accepting a project and not signing off on it are pretty bold moves.
- inlined 7y ago
  Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. I’m a professional who had signed off on legal documents. Why would the buck not stop at me? That’s the way it works in architecture and other professions.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - hobofan 7y ago
      I _think_ this rule is intended to discourage "Have an upvote" (and similar) comments, commonly seen on Reddit. Reminding fellow readers/commenters to not just shallowly dismiss comments once in a while doesn't do much harm, and actually lead me to reply to the parent.
- hobofan 7y ago
  Even though it's not optimal, maybe that's what it takes? Then top-tier engineers would think twice about working for companies with shady privacy practices and Google would finally have an incentive to better themselves.
peterwwillis 7y ago
Jail time? For telling companies what kinds of shoes you shop for on Amazon?
- Nextgrid 7y ago
  For stalking you. They may only use the info to tell others about shoes for now but imagine the damage if this info was misused in other ways.
- docker_up 7y ago
  Yep. Privacy violations and leaks should be punished with fines and jail time. Period. End of sentence. Just like execs have to personally sign for and are accountable for their financial statements, they should do the same thing with privacy. GDPR sets a very common leveling of the field so it's completely fair now.
  - peterwwillis 7y ago
    "Privacy violation" is a huge, gigantic category of all kinds of things. One kind of privacy violation is completely different from another; some privacy violations are completely harmless, and some are actually directly harmful, and some in between. Giving jail time for any of these is like giving jail time for any kind of "offensive behavior". Maybe someone just didn't like what someone said and called it offensive, or maybe someone physically attacked someone else. You don't get jail time just because someone claimed offense, you have to prove harm, and fit the punishment to the crime. This is why I can't take privacy advocates seriously. Their effort to fight for all privacy undermines the attempt to prevent real harm from specific kinds of information being exposed.
    - feanaro 7y ago
      How about systematic, deliberate, deceptive privacy violations in order to increase profits? That seems like a pretty distinct category from the cases you are concerned with.
      - 7y ago
mey 7y ago
They dropped the Do No Evil in their mission statement in 2015.

Sadly mid-level employees would probably be the ones going to jail. The tech lead and/or PM sign off on compliance. I used to joke that one of my responsibilities was to put my freedom at stake. None of my products violate GDPR in any way I could conceive, but I’d hate to be handed down a mandate to do so. Both not accepting a project and not signing off on it are pretty bold moves.

inlined 7y ago
Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. I’m a professional who had signed off on legal documents. Why would the buck not stop at me? That’s the way it works in architecture and other professions.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  Common retort: don’t just downvote me, tell me why I’m wrong. "Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - hobofan 7y ago
    I _think_ this rule is intended to discourage "Have an upvote" (and similar) comments, commonly seen on Reddit. Reminding fellow readers/commenters to not just shallowly dismiss comments once in a while doesn't do much harm, and actually lead me to reply to the parent.
hobofan 7y ago
Even though it's not optimal, maybe that's what it takes? Then top-tier engineers would think twice about working for companies with shady privacy practices and Google would finally have an incentive to better themselves.

peterwwillis 7y ago

Jail time? For telling companies what kinds of shoes you shop for on Amazon?

Nextgrid 7y ago
For stalking you. They may only use the info to tell others about shoes for now but imagine the damage if this info was misused in other ways.
docker_up 7y ago
Yep. Privacy violations and leaks should be punished with fines and jail time. Period. End of sentence. Just like execs have to personally sign for and are accountable for their financial statements, they should do the same thing with privacy. GDPR sets a very common leveling of the field so it's completely fair now.
- peterwwillis 7y ago
  "Privacy violation" is a huge, gigantic category of all kinds of things. One kind of privacy violation is completely different from another; some privacy violations are completely harmless, and some are actually directly harmful, and some in between. Giving jail time for any of these is like giving jail time for any kind of "offensive behavior". Maybe someone just didn't like what someone said and called it offensive, or maybe someone physically attacked someone else. You don't get jail time just because someone claimed offense, you have to prove harm, and fit the punishment to the crime. This is why I can't take privacy advocates seriously. Their effort to fight for all privacy undermines the attempt to prevent real harm from specific kinds of information being exposed.
  - feanaro 7y ago
    How about systematic, deliberate, deceptive privacy violations in order to increase profits? That seems like a pretty distinct category from the cases you are concerned with.
    - 7y ago

mey 7y ago

They dropped the Do No Evil in their mission statement in 2015.