Google Proposes "Know, Prevent, Fix" Framework For Dealing With Security Vulnerabilities

[ddriver]

Burden of proof is typically on the person making a claim. If you're saying that Google is one of the most evil corporations out there, you should probably come up with a reasonable metric/proof for that. Just repeating your hate over and over again is not an argument.

Also, sarcasm directed at the opponent is generally not humor. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...ny-think-again (essentially people who are a******s like it, because if the opponent responds to the attack they can immediately retort with "you're humorless").

Well, apply burden of proof to yourself if you don't want to be a lowly hypocrite.

You claim I hate googul. That is a foolish statement. It would be just as stupid to say that... for example that you hate one particular excrement. You might dislike excrement in general, but to hate one particular excrement is completely irrational, it serves no purpose.

You want proof? How about dishonesty? Googul is dishonest about what its priorities are. If you are dishonest about your priorities, that means you are hiding them, and if you are hiding them, that's because they are bad. Googul reduces its users to products, it reduces humans to milking cattle, and even in this pretended concern for software quality, what it is truly chasing is even more than the already unreasonable amount of power it has.

Also, don't flatter yourself, you are lifetimes away from qualifying to be my opponent. You are a just an npc that has issues with variant forms of literary expression. You obviously need to be told by phds what's funny FFS. Pretty sure that guy that wrote that article wouldn't know funny if it sat on his face...

[Paradigm Shifter]

They might be a possible security risk, but I mitigate that by removing all permissions and all access capability. It takes awhile as Android likes to hide that in two different locations.

Yes, I think it was earlier version(s) of Android which didn't allow the users to manually set permissions. Was it Android 5 or 6 which finally allowed users a degree of control over what software was forced on them? Or was it later? I forget. (Even if they weren't actually allowed to REMOVE it...)

[coder]

Google got where it was because people believed the "don't be evil" tagline they publicised. Notice how they dropped that (2015?) as soon as they had such a dominant position that the only way to de-Google the internet would be basically wipe out the internet as we know it and start again from dial-up BBS.

This is an interesting point of discussion, IMO. The best argument I've heard for dropping it is that it's ill-defined and not quantifiable. Unfortunately, rather that replace it with anything which is well-defined and quantifiable, they just walked away from it (IIRC, correct me if I'm wrong).

I think what's uncomfortable about google (besides the whole creepiness factor about compiling troves of information about everyone) is that they seem to have stumbled into the trap of vice, on the path towards more noble goals. Organizing all the world's information and making it available to people is indeed noble, but the world into which Google was born was one where you just couldn't get end-users to pay for these services. Google didn't invent web search, web mail, online maps, or pretty much anything else they do. They just did it better, because they did a better job of figuring out how to fund it. But, that was like a deal with the devil -- there's no way out.

Ultimately, hating on Google is sort of a lost cause. It's like any big company that almost inevitably does some bad things. When you get that big, you amass a lot of power (which implies the ability to cause a lot of harm) and you have big, powerful shareholders that keep pushing you forward.

Hating Google is sort of like hating rats. A rat is just doing what a rat does. If it's crawling around in your walls, you're understandably upset, but it's what you'd do if you were that rat. And like a rat, if all you do is kill it, others will probably get in just like that one. The solution is systemic and regulatory. As long as we lack better guardrails, there will always be those playing Google's game, even if it's not Google.

* If this sounds like an apology or defense, it's not. Just because it sort of can't help itself doesn't mean it shouldn't be held to account. I just think it's not really that special, in that it ultimately ends up behaving somewhat at odds with the interests of its customers and society at large, just like every mega-corp. This is not new, but we've somehow lost our taste and knack for regulation, in this country.

[coder]

Googul is one of the most evil corporations out there, so evil it cannot even be open about it, like many corporations of their caliber are, and in fact it spends quite a lot of effort to conceal it, more than any other entity of its kind. I dare say making money is not even its ultimate goal, just the means to an end that is far worse.

One thing that gives me a bad feeling about them and how deep the "rot" goes are the stories that leak out about how they treat their employees. Sure, they're well-paid and get lots of benefits, but Google seems to burn though people at a pretty high rate and seem fairly unsympathetic and harsh towards their own people. It's as if it looks like disneyland from the outside, but then it's more like North Korea, from the inside. And it has a way of infantilizing Googlers and making them seem enfeebled (not that I have a lot of data points to draw from).

Here's a case where having a highly-competent workforce might actually be a bad thing. Maybe that means having strict management and draconian HR. While, in a corporation that's less well-run, maybe you luck out and get a decent manager who can get away with being humane to their team.

[f0rmat]

Yes, I think it was earlier version(s) of Android which didn't allow the users to manually set permissions. Was it Android 5 or 6 which finally allowed users a degree of control over what software was forced on them? Or was it later? I forget. (Even if they weren't actually allowed to REMOVE it...)

My first Android was 6 and I could adjust permissions on that.

[bug77]

My first Android was 6 and I could adjust permissions on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_version_history

6 was the first version that allowed individual permission settings. Before that it was an all or nothing approach. The problem is some permissions (e.g. network access, run at startup) are granted by default and not all of them can be revoked in app settings.

[vladpetric]

One thing that gives me a bad feeling about them and how deep the "rot" goes are the stories that leak out about how they treat their employees. Sure, they're well-paid and get lots of benefits, but Google seems to burn though people at a pretty high rate and seem fairly unsympathetic and harsh towards their own people. It's as if it looks like disneyland from the outside, but then it's more like North Korea, from the inside. And it has a way of infantilizing Googlers and making them seem enfeebled (not that I have a lot of data points to draw from).

Here's a case where having a highly-competent workforce might actually be a bad thing. Maybe that means having strict management and draconian HR. While, in a corporation that's less well-run, maybe you luck out and get a decent manager who can get away with being humane to their team.

Glassdoor puts Google/Alphabet on #6 in top 10:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Award/Best-Places-to-Work-LST_KQ0,19.htm

And keep in mind that media has significant selection bias (and that's hardly the only bias they have)

[coder]

Glassdoor puts Google/Alphabet on #6 in top 10:

https://www.glassdoor.com/Award/Best-Places-to-Work-LST_KQ0,19.htm

And keep in mind that media has significant selection bias (and that's hardly the only bias they have)

Fair points, but also I'm sure it's influenced by their compensation and the appreciation in stock price. That can't help but color one's opinions of an employer. I would certainly be a lot happier in my job, if I were making the salary of a Googler and had stock options.

[increasechief]

You need to check your privileged Google.