'They'll Squash You Like a Bug': How Silicon Valley Keeps a Lid on Leakers (theguardian.com) 99
The public image of Silicon Valley's tech giants is all colourful bicycles, ping-pong tables, beanbags and free food, but behind the cartoonish facade is a ruthless code of secrecy. From a report: They rely on a combination of Kool-Aid, digital and physical surveillance, legal threats and restricted stock units to prevent and detect intellectual property theft and other criminal activity. However, those same tools are also used to catch employees and contractors who talk publicly, even if it's about their working conditions, misconduct or cultural challenges within the company. While Apple's culture of secrecy, which includes making employees sign project-specific NDAs and covering unlaunched products with black cloths, has been widely reported, companies such as Google and Facebook have long put the emphasis on internal transparency.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company's internal version of Facebook. "When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.
Zuckerberg hosts weekly meetings where he shares details of unreleased new products and strategies in front of thousands of employees. Even junior staff members and contractors can see what other teams are working on by looking at one of many of the groups on the company's internal version of Facebook. "When you first get to Facebook you are shocked at the level of transparency. You are trusted with a lot of stuff you don't need access to," said Evans, adding that during his induction he was warned not to look at ex-partners' Facebook accounts.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Interesting.. Lets compare this with the current left wing narrative.
1. nationalist jingoism: no. They're 180 degrees out, usually saying how the incumbent culture/country does not deserve to exist or have an 'identity.'
2. human rights: this depends on what you mean by human rights. If you mean rights such as equal opportunity, free speech, self-defense, innocence until proven guilty, etc, then both the left and the right are failing here.
3. Enemies as unifying cause: Again, both have been guilty of this i
Re: (Score:1)
1. nationalist jingoism: no. They're 180 degrees out, usually saying how the incumbent culture/country does not deserve to exist or have an 'identity.'
Right, the Republicans are the nationalists, not the Dems.
3. Enemies as unifying cause: Again, both have been guilty of this in the past, but right now, it's the left targeting the evil white and/or straight and/or male.
Horseshit. I mean sure, that's happening, but the right has never stopped targeting all the people it's always been targeting, and it has lately actually stepped that up. So it's both of them.
5. Rampant sexism? You mean like campus rape tribunals modeled after their Soviet counterparts? Insufferably anti-male HR department 'harassment' policy? Sexist hiring policies at google? The left is the current leader these days.
Also total horse shit. The right is still drastically more sexist. That's how we have a pussy-grabbing, wife-raping president.
As in crony capitalism goes? That's a left wing thing.
More horse shit.
11. fraudulent elections: Again, plenty of examples on both sides
Every time the right looks for signs of election fraud by the left, they find signs of election fraud by the right.
You s
Re: (Score:2)
oh the hyperbole, come the fuck on.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You know what happens to people who carry knives?
They get shot.
Re: (Score:2)
How bout a knife, instead of arming your CHILD with an INDUSTRIAL SCALE KILLING MACHINE.
Because some of the thugs out there are industrial scale killers. You need something that will impress them with your will to live.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Fuck off and die.
I suggest gasoline. That would be an appropriate death for you.
Re: (Score:1)
You start a comment with "fuck you and your daughter" and you're surprised at the response you got?
Hope fantasizing about some stranger's kids getting murdered helps you get your rocks off. I bet you've even convinced yourself you're not the asshole here.
Go ahead and try to stop a criminal with your knife. Better yet, get rid of the knife and just give him a big condescending speech, then he'll just give you his gun. Or use your fucking "karate". Idiot.
Re: (Score:1)
You know what else doesn't help in a mugging or a robbery? Gun control. Because, surprise, they're already breaking the law.
So what's your point? The guy's daughter doesn't deserve a gun because it probably won't stop her from being raped? So the fuck what?
Your right to defend yourself is not predicated on your ability to do so successfully. Stop trying to strip the rights away from others by projecting your own feelings of ineffectiveness onto the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
So how many ass beatings have you dished out over the years? I'm going to guess zero.
Re: (Score:2)
I've had my ass whooped about 5 or 6 times
But have handed out double that amount in ass whoopings.
You're too much of a snowflake to even log into Slashdot, where someone might associate your ideas with an email address. Given how easy it is to get a free email account, that's exceptionally pathetic. I'm thinking you're about thirteen years old, and the only ass you've ever kicked has been your own.
Run along, child. We can have banal arguments without you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: SJWs are the Worst (Score:2)
by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on 03-16-18 14:48 (#56272251) Homepage [hyperlogos.org] Journal
[...]
You're too much of a snowflake to even log into Slashdot,
Drinkypoo? You might as well have not logged in. I lmao at dumbshits who have essentially anonymous logins who criticize others for real anonymous logins.
I lmao at dumbshits who can't read. Your parents must be real proud of you.
Re: (Score:2)
Login status actually means a lot in an age when any given commenter may not actually be posting their opinion but instead what they're paid to write.
Re: (Score:2)
No Puppet. No Puppet. You’re the Puppet!
https://youtu.be/UaVWRetR4jg [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
But, robbery and rape are many times more frequent than murder. Somehow, you imaginary world just doesn't match up with the real one.
In the real one, the CDC studies of gun violence have consistently show the same thing: Private gun ownership prevents about 1.5 million crimes per year. Minimum 500,000, max 2.5 million [nap.edu]. Most of those would-be victims are women and elderly.
But you'd rather see more women beaten, robbed, and raped than see someone allowed to protect themselves. That makes you an asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
If it was a CDC study, you'd link to the CDC. It says right in your link that what actually happened was that the CDC contributed funding to study problems related to gun violence, and the thing you're linking to is a policy paper that outlines objectives of the people who received that funding.
Notice the bait-and-switch?
Yes, the CDC has spent money to study gun violence. Yes, the people who wrote that policy paper received some of that money. No, that does not mean that the CDC supports their agenda, and n
Re:And the thug see her getting her gun... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No not really (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, you waved your hands and claimed n blah blah for every blah.
That's not what any of the linked studies (there were none) said. It did say that people wanted to study if such a thing were true, using methodology that would actually prove something totally different.
Re: (Score:1)
If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
It sounds like your lessons are so dangerous to her, they put her in a dangerous situation where her life is in peril even before she's encountered any sort of threat!
It is really scary the varied bullshit that young people have to overcome in this society. Wowsers.
(Also note that possession of a gun in a robbery or other crime increases your chance of death, it does NOT make you safer, or in any way "protect" you
Re: (Score:3)
If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
Probably not, as long as she can show she had definite fear of loss of her life. After all, a single punch can kill [wikipedia.org]. If she's 110 pounds, and up against someone much larger than her, then use of a firearm will NOT be murder at all, but a reasonable means of self-defense.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, but using "one punch can kill" as an excuse for why you shot somebody doesn't describe self defense, it describes admitting to murder.
This is not theory, don't be an idiot. Self defense isn't based on making a promise that you were really super-duper scared even though the threat was only with fists. That's daft. There is an actual process to measure it. And "oh a punch can kill" are not magic words that make it legal to use a deadly weapon to defend against a minor assault.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't be a moron. Instead of posting those links and asserting that you are Right, fucking read them.
Somebody punching you is a low level misdemeanor, not even a felony. The link explains if you can use deadly force or not. (not) You can't even use a weapon. Simply displaying the weapon when the threat is a misdemeanor actually is likely to be a felony itself; a bystander might even legally shoot you in defense of the person you're threatening with the weapon!
What a maroon. Read your own fucking links, assh
Re: (Score:2)
If she used a gun to defend against a fist fight, that's called murder and she'll go to prison.
Not here in Arizona she wouldn't.
Re: (Score:2)
- "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence." [nap.edu] Institute of Me
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
CA where they let illegals off for murdering citizens.
Re: (Score:2)
When she returns to a population center larger than Seneca, Nebraska [radiolab.org], maybe she won't need the gun so much.
The largest regulating influence on physical confrontation is the social environment. On average, woman slightly outperform men in best exploiting their social environment.
Bottom line: step away from the bathroom scale, and consider some of the other crucial factors.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, notice the two companies shown positively (google and facebook) are SJW havens?
Don't $hit where you eat (Score:5, Insightful)
Your employer is paying you for a service. Don't help the competition and screw up their business. Don't blab about your employer on social media or anywhere else.
If you're too stupid to realize that, you'll have a hard time at life
Re:Don't $hit where you eat (Score:5, Informative)
Your employer is paying you for a service. Don't help the competition and screw up their business. Don't blab about your employer on social media or anywhere else.
I learned pretty quickly: I like my job. I want my company to do well, and I want to do well as well. I have no social need to appear 'cool' on the Internet; I'm not that weak. Others do not need to know what products my company is launching. They don't.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no social need to appear 'cool' on the Internet; I'm not that weak.
The people doing the leaking, are not doing it to be cool on the Internet. They do it because they get some compensation ($$) from the person they leak the information to.
Re: (Score:2)
Back that up. Right now. Who got paid, for what?
I'm not defending Facebook. Quite the contrary. But if we want to get at the truth we must filter out the BS.
So: offer something that will get through the filter. Otherwise you are quite literally wasting everybody's time.
As opposed to companies outside of SV? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if companies are in the PR phase, they reward leakers.
Re:As opposed to companies outside of SV? (Score:4, Insightful)
This discussion seems to be omitting those cases, but as we have learned, they are all too common.
In fact, there is a lot of information coming out now suggesting that corruption in silicon valley and social media has become what one might call "rampant".
Yes, it's called "professionalism" (Score:5, Insightful)
I am privy to new features, bugs, big initiatives/deliverables, ship dates, financial data, methodologies, long term vision, etc at my company. Management is very clear this kind of stuff is confidential until the official software is released, or should never be released since it is considered proprietary, confidential, or may slip a release if the project doesn't work out for some reason. It happens. We do share certain information with partners, big customers, etc, but all under NDA and with similar disclaimers (e.g. "this is planned for this release but it is never guaranteed").
If I decided to blab this stuff somehow I would 100% expect to be fired if I was found out. I can read and comprehend the "CONFIDENTIAL -- DO NOT RELEASE" thing that's on all documents and presentations like this.
Re: (Score:3)
Although this is obviously the way the world works, I would point out it both a) leaves us open to insider trading and b) distorts the free market via incomplete information among consumers.
Re: (Score:3)
I work for a financial company. We're not allowed to trade without getting permission and we have to specify the stock I'm buying. Company shares I can't buy except for special periods during the year, only with permission and I have to hold them a minimum of 6 months or something similar.
My employer has access to my broker account and knows about any trade within a day or less so it's not like I can buy a stock and keep it secret. If I don't report a broker account, my employer will find out anyway because
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds nice in theory, but it is not logically possible to have complete information available, ever. What would that even look like? Should I let the world, including our competitors, read all my work email? Does the public get to peruse our defect tracking system? Should a put a webcam in every meeting room and broadcast it through a youtube channel?
As a practical matter, lines must be drawn somewhere and reasonable attempts must be made to discourage employees from crossing those lines, so that
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, yeah, complete information is not going to realistically happen. I just find the tradeoffs there fascinating. I mean, companies need secret information to function (I think. I'm not sure. 100% public disclosure of defects would be nice, but lead to them not getting entered into the system. The finance world would get turned upside down, but I htink I'm okay with that.)
Re: (Score:2)
The tradeoffs are interesting. It is worth noting that a century or so ago, insider trading was simply legal. When the question came up before a judge, the judge just shrugged and said that it seems natural enough that being CEO has its benefits when it comes to dealing in the company stock. It was legislation that brought the idea of insider trading into being.
Re: (Score:2)
Although this is obviously the way the world works, I would point out it both a) leaves us open to insider trading and b) distorts the free market via incomplete information among consumers.
Most companies that make this sort of information generally available to employees inform those employees that they're legally considered insiders by the SEC and that they are barred from trading the company's stock except during specific trading windows.
Executives at all publicly-traded companies fall under these restrictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Honestly though, if you're in the habit of plugging random USB thumb-drives you found into your regular computer, you're probably not the sharpest cookie in the first place. It's such a common vector for nefarious actors to inject malware that it's almost a cliche at this point. It shouldn't be an "instantly escorted out of the building" offense. But a very stern talking to on the part of the infosec team would definitely be in order.
Fecebook is full of feces... (Score:3)
At the end of the day, Facebook is an ad-supported self-publishing platform, nothing more or less in the end. Whether news about a new feature comes out today or in two weeks isn't going to make or break their business model. The witch-hunting smells of inflated senses of self-importance.
Random car and personal searches? Access to personal email and phone calls written into contracts? We're not talking about Los Alamos in the 1940s, where they designed weapons capable of killing millions, yet security is on that level. Why? Inflated egos of management of a company that thinks it's more important to the world than it actually is.
Remember MySpace? AOL? No? Good. That's where FB will be in 15 years.
"Squash you like a bug" (Score:1)
No, they keep the bugs in and squash the staff.