Google Building Privacy Red Team 92
Trailrunner7 writes "Google, which has come under fire for years for its privacy practices and recently settled a privacy related case with the Federal Trade Commission that resulted in a $22.5 million fine, is building out a privacy 'red team,' a group of people charged with finding and resolving privacy risks in the company's products. The concept of a red team is one that's been used in security for decades, with small teams of experts trying to break a given software application, get into a network or circumvent a security system as part of a penetration test or a similar engagement. The idea is sometimes applied in the real world as well, in the form of people attempting to gain entry to a secure facility or other restricted area."
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
And I thought it was the EU and Canada fines (Score:2, Insightful)
And here I thought, silly me, that it was the massive fines by the EU and Canadian regulators as to their practices that caused this change.
Never mind.
I'm sure they're doing it for the reason you say.
Re:Oh god... make them stop, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is, you just have to take steps to preserve yours, which most people don't do.
And the rampant privacy violations that happen by default exist because people don't care about their privacy. If they did, engaging in such practices would put companies out of business. But people actively support this world, where everything they do is tracked. Such drastic measures to preserve privacy would not be necessary if more people cared about not living in a Panopticon.
Re:Intentional vs. Unintentional (Score:5, Insightful)
Google is big. It's also a way to find ways the left hand is intentionally violating privacy, that the right hand doesn't know about. In big companies, decisions that could potentially impact privacy are made by people who don't necessarily have the awareness of legislation that lets them know they're opening the company to liability by doing what they're doing - they're just trying to get their project off the ground. The potential privacy violation doesn't percolate up to the top where people who know the sort of poo the company could get into by doing it actually hear of it.
Re:Oh god... make them stop, please. (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, and think Google is on the right track here.
I suspect they are starting to see the backlash against easily broken security, and are starting to do something about it.
This is really amazing when you stop and think that they have most to gain by learning all your habits (or at least the "Hate Google First" rabble would have you believe.
The iCloud meltdown preceded by the never ending follies of facebook probably told Google it was time to test their own stuff rather than wait for the storm to hit home. They are well ahead of the game with two factor authentication. Now if they could just add Zero Knowledge encryption techniques to their Google Drive they could be giving even more assurance they weren't out to market anything more about you than what is already public record.
I would love to have stuff backed up in the cloud, but as it is, the only cloud I trust is SpiderOak.
Re:I think... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I think... (Score:3, Insightful)
You shouldn't be concerned about Google. This data is Google's most valuable possession, and the company's entire value is dependent upon that data staying in the company. Google is the producer and consumer of the data, and they're not going to let it out. Google (and everyone in charge there) also has a strong sense of ethics, and while some things have gone wrong, their record is still pretty stellar.
Who you SHOULD be worried about are the companies that exist solely to collect and sell information. They don't play by the rules, they don't try to be ethical, and their entire business plan is to grab as much information about you as possible and sell it to the highest bidder.
Re:Oh god... make them stop, please. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the ridiculous thing is that my email and phone account is orders of magnitude safer than my bank account.
Google's security is already miles beyond the average website, it's banks I want to see get into the 21st century. I should be able to use top-notch encryption techniques if I so desired, instead of an 8-character password coupled with questions for which anybody could find answers if they even vaguely knew me.
Re:Intentional vs. Unintentional (Score:5, Insightful)
The violation may have been intentional, but the malice may still not have been there.
Hyperbole (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, because it is much worse for Google to know I prefer a BMW to a Toyota and serve me ads appropriately, vs. having someone use the same information to steal my identity, take out a second mortgage on my home, and leave me destitute.
You can take my house, but PLEASE don't ask me what my car preference is!
Can we tone down the hyperbole please? Comparing using personal data for marketing vs. using it to steal from innocents is just stupid.