5 ms·

"And a Basecamp user uploaded the 100,000,000th file (It was a picture of a cat!)" Aren't you supposed to treat user data as confidential and not examine the c

by mpk 15y ago

"And a Basecamp user uploaded the 100,000,000th file (It was a picture of a cat!)" Aren't you supposed to treat user data as confidential and not examine the contents?

themcgruff 15y ago
The file was named cat.jpg and that was logged, which was what we saw. We do not look at user’s files.
- huggyface 15y ago
  Terribly bad judgment to post that. Like apparently numerous others, that bit caught my eye and made me pause and reflect on the downside of SaaS. Even looking at the filename seems pretty suspect, as an aside. What if the filename was BankruptcyPreparation.docx, or TerminationOfBobDobbs.pdf, etc? The metadata about a file should be confidential as well.
  - themcgruff 15y ago
    As DHH commented on the post: The file name was only shared because it was funny and not identifiable with anything, and just seen passing through the logs. We do not look at people’s files and we do not share any personal information of any kind. Had it been BankruptcyPreparation.docx, or any other sensitive file name I would never have shared it. Going forward I won't be sharing dog.gif either.
    - tomkin 15y ago
      You're going to get flack for this because you've revealed a very small PR hole in an otherwise great company with great products. I'll continue to use your products. Even if you were to post BankruptcyPreparation.docx. Here's why: You're not a bunch of fucking idiots. If 37signals was a mish-mash of security issues and red flags, ya, I might be a bit pissed to see BankruptcyPreparation.docx mentioned. Some of us would love to hear that 37signals fucked up large and did something imperfect. Not because of narcissism or blind hate, but just because it makes their success digestible, makes them human.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
      - hahainternet 15y ago
        Passwords. Plaintext. You're welcome.
  - csallen 15y ago
    I won't comment on whether or not it was wise of them to post that information, except to say that plenty of other services have posted much more revealing data without backlash of any kind. What I will question, however, is the assertion that looking at user filenames is suspect. That's easily fair game, and to claim otherwise is as ridiculous as claiming your dentist has no right to see your dental records, or your bank shouldn't know how much money is in your account. If you're that protective of your data, then it's up to you make wiser decisions. For starters, don't name your files SuperSecretPrivateInfo.doc and then give them to other people to store. Take a look at their extremely readable privacy policy. Send them an email with questions. If you care so much, take action and stop blaming other people for your own laziness.
    - huggyface 15y ago
      Plenty of other services have shown indiscretion about their client's data. That doesn't validate this case, especially considering that many of us look to 37signals as essentially the poster boy of leading behaviors. We expect more from them. I am not trying to be argumentative but want to respond to a point you made as I think it is critically important for many HNers running or aspiring to run SaaS solutions- "If you're that protective of your data, then it's up to you make wiser decisions. For starters, don't name your files SuperSecretPrivateInfo.doc and then give them to other people to store." For real? I guarantee that 37signals would not sanction such a ridiculous statement. Most SaaS companies wouldn't touch such claims with a 40' pole. The industry lives and breathes on the feeling that the data is confidential. We're currently looking at some hosted helpdesk ticket solutions, and I can tell you that if there was even the slightest hint that the vendors casually browsed our data we would rethink the whole adventure.
      - walkon 15y ago
        Cat.jpg from an unknown user of Basecamp. This tells us nothing about anyone. Get over it.
        sunchild 15y ago
        It tells us that they looked at customer data, and that's a really, really big deal to people who are doing serious business that involves private information that is: (1) regulated by government, and/or (2) has significant commercial value. You can waive your arms and talk yourself blue in the face about your security protocols, but in the end it all comes down to trust. This kind of slip-up erodes that trust.
  - dreww 15y ago
    hey which customer uploaded the file? oh, you don't know? then shut the up, as you don't know anything about anyone.
- mahyarm 15y ago
  You should of emailed the user that their picture was #100'000'000 and if they would give you permission to look at the picture to feature in their blog post. That would of been the ethical way to do it.
- sunchild 15y ago
  Sorry, but that is just a huge blunder. I can see from your comment that you think it's no big deal, but I read that item and immediately blacklisted 37Signals as a vendor that looks at customer files. Your explanation makes it worse, not better; you shouldn't even be looking at filenames.
  - vl 15y ago
    While it was stupid of them to publish this, you do realize that engineers working on cloud storage services have access to user data, don't you? However restricted it is, there are always people who have to debug this last mile and look at things, including actual user data, if something is not working on the live site.
    - sunchild 15y ago
      Yes, I realize that. In my opinion, there's no qualitative difference between employees of AWS peeking into my data or employees that I hired peeking into my data. It's about trust in the end. Anyone who has set up company email knows this. A lot of people think that having an in-house team manage a dedicated, on-premises mail server is somehow "better" or "more secure" than hiring Google or Microsoft or Ma&Pa Exchange Hosting to do it. Those people either: (1) have a reason to trust their employees that they don't have when it comes to Google/Microsoft/Ma&Pa, or (2) are living in a fantasy of their own delusions.
  - bluesnowmonkey 15y ago
    How do you know that other vendors don't look at your data? Really, what assurance do you have, other than that they don't casually mention doing so?

by mpk 15y ago

"And a Basecamp user uploaded the 100,000,000th file (It was a picture of a cat!)" Aren't you supposed to treat user data as confidential and not examine the contents?

themcgruff 15y ago

The file was named cat.jpg and that was logged, which was what we saw. We do not look at user’s files.

huggyface 15y ago
Terribly bad judgment to post that. Like apparently numerous others, that bit caught my eye and made me pause and reflect on the downside of SaaS. Even looking at the filename seems pretty suspect, as an aside. What if the filename was BankruptcyPreparation.docx, or TerminationOfBobDobbs.pdf, etc? The metadata about a file should be confidential as well.
- themcgruff 15y ago
  As DHH commented on the post: The file name was only shared because it was funny and not identifiable with anything, and just seen passing through the logs. We do not look at people’s files and we do not share any personal information of any kind. Had it been BankruptcyPreparation.docx, or any other sensitive file name I would never have shared it. Going forward I won't be sharing dog.gif either.
  - tomkin 15y ago
    You're going to get flack for this because you've revealed a very small PR hole in an otherwise great company with great products. I'll continue to use your products. Even if you were to post BankruptcyPreparation.docx. Here's why: You're not a bunch of fucking idiots. If 37signals was a mish-mash of security issues and red flags, ya, I might be a bit pissed to see BankruptcyPreparation.docx mentioned. Some of us would love to hear that 37signals fucked up large and did something imperfect. Not because of narcissism or blind hate, but just because it makes their success digestible, makes them human.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - hahainternet 15y ago
      Passwords. Plaintext. You're welcome.
- csallen 15y ago
  I won't comment on whether or not it was wise of them to post that information, except to say that plenty of other services have posted much more revealing data without backlash of any kind. What I will question, however, is the assertion that looking at user filenames is suspect. That's easily fair game, and to claim otherwise is as ridiculous as claiming your dentist has no right to see your dental records, or your bank shouldn't know how much money is in your account. If you're that protective of your data, then it's up to you make wiser decisions. For starters, don't name your files SuperSecretPrivateInfo.doc and then give them to other people to store. Take a look at their extremely readable privacy policy. Send them an email with questions. If you care so much, take action and stop blaming other people for your own laziness.
  - huggyface 15y ago
    Plenty of other services have shown indiscretion about their client's data. That doesn't validate this case, especially considering that many of us look to 37signals as essentially the poster boy of leading behaviors. We expect more from them. I am not trying to be argumentative but want to respond to a point you made as I think it is critically important for many HNers running or aspiring to run SaaS solutions- "If you're that protective of your data, then it's up to you make wiser decisions. For starters, don't name your files SuperSecretPrivateInfo.doc and then give them to other people to store." For real? I guarantee that 37signals would not sanction such a ridiculous statement. Most SaaS companies wouldn't touch such claims with a 40' pole. The industry lives and breathes on the feeling that the data is confidential. We're currently looking at some hosted helpdesk ticket solutions, and I can tell you that if there was even the slightest hint that the vendors casually browsed our data we would rethink the whole adventure.
    - walkon 15y ago
      Cat.jpg from an unknown user of Basecamp. This tells us nothing about anyone. Get over it.
      - sunchild 15y ago
        It tells us that they looked at customer data, and that's a really, really big deal to people who are doing serious business that involves private information that is: (1) regulated by government, and/or (2) has significant commercial value. You can waive your arms and talk yourself blue in the face about your security protocols, but in the end it all comes down to trust. This kind of slip-up erodes that trust.
- dreww 15y ago
  hey which customer uploaded the file? oh, you don't know? then shut the up, as you don't know anything about anyone.
mahyarm 15y ago
You should of emailed the user that their picture was #100'000'000 and if they would give you permission to look at the picture to feature in their blog post. That would of been the ethical way to do it.
sunchild 15y ago
Sorry, but that is just a huge blunder. I can see from your comment that you think it's no big deal, but I read that item and immediately blacklisted 37Signals as a vendor that looks at customer files. Your explanation makes it worse, not better; you shouldn't even be looking at filenames.
- vl 15y ago
  While it was stupid of them to publish this, you do realize that engineers working on cloud storage services have access to user data, don't you? However restricted it is, there are always people who have to debug this last mile and look at things, including actual user data, if something is not working on the live site.
  - sunchild 15y ago
    Yes, I realize that. In my opinion, there's no qualitative difference between employees of AWS peeking into my data or employees that I hired peeking into my data. It's about trust in the end. Anyone who has set up company email knows this. A lot of people think that having an in-house team manage a dedicated, on-premises mail server is somehow "better" or "more secure" than hiring Google or Microsoft or Ma&Pa Exchange Hosting to do it. Those people either: (1) have a reason to trust their employees that they don't have when it comes to Google/Microsoft/Ma&Pa, or (2) are living in a fantasy of their own delusions.
- bluesnowmonkey 15y ago
  How do you know that other vendors don't look at your data? Really, what assurance do you have, other than that they don't casually mention doing so?