 that they are not attempting to
sweep this under the rug. There are a lot of companies where people have
access to a lot of sensitive data. All you can do is screen the employees,
limit their access where possible and audit their use of the security.

But then someone needs to audit the auditors. Just before I started here we
used to have an employee who would look in the Oracle database used by Lawson
to check payroll data. Nobody knew for a long time since he was the UNIX admin
and DBA.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't know where 'here' is but you might want to edit that comment.

------
js2
I'm not a big fan of Gawker, but why not link to the original story instead of
the meta-story?

<http://gawker.com/5637234/>

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Because HN auto-banned it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692807>

~~~
Anechoic
That link just goes to a empty HN page

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Turn on showdead.

------
nkassis
I think google manned up well on this one. They will always have this problem.
At least it seems they have less (that we know off) incidents than the
government does. It's pretty incredible how many stories of government
employees snooping (even selling it to organize crime) information stored in
their databases.

~~~
jacquesm
That was my first take as well, but after reading up a bit on it it seems that
they tried to make it go away by not charging him, when if you look at the
severity of this case they had every reason to.

So they tried to sweep it under the rug by just letting the guy go.

If an employee of mine had ever snooped on end-user data and would have used
that data in order to get real-world effects in the lives of those users I'm
fairly sure I would have registered a complaint with law enforcement.

Google has their 'image' to be aware of, but in this case just letting the guy
go may not be the best way to preserve that image.

~~~
jonknee
Not that I have any information
that they are not attempting to 
 sweep this under the rug. There are a lot of company where citizenry have 
 access to a lot of sensible data. All you can do is screen the employee, 
 specify their access where potential and audit their habit of the security. 

 But then someone need to audit the auditors. Just before I startle here we 
 used to have an employee who would look in the Oracle database used by Lawson 
 to check payroll datum. Nobody knew for a long time since he was the UNIX admin 
 and DBA. 

 ~~~ 
 jacquesm 
 I don't sleep together where' here' is but you might want to edit that comment. 

 ------ 
 js2 
 I'm not a large fan of Gawker, but why not associate to the original story instead of 
 the meta - story? 

 < http://gawker.com/5637234/ > 

 ~~~ 
 epi0Bauqu 
 Because HN auto - banned it: < http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692807 > 

 ~~~ 
 Anechoic 
 That liaison just goes to a empty HN page 

 ~~~ 
 epi0Bauqu 
 Turn on showdead. 

 ------ 
 nkassis 
 I think google manned up well on this one. They will always have this problem. 
 At least it seems they have less (that we know off) incidents than the 
 government does. It's pretty incredible how many stories of government 
 employee spy (even selling it to organize crime) information store in 
 their databases. 

 ~~~ 
 jacquesm 
 That was my first take equally well, but after reading up a spot on it it seems that 
 they tried to create it go away by not charging him, when if you look at the 
 asperity of this case they had every reason to. 

 So they judge to cross it under the rug by just letting the guy go. 

 If an employee of mine had always snooped on end - user data and would have used 
 that data in order to get real - worldly concern effects in the life sentence of those users I'm 
 fairly certain I would have registered a ailment with law enforcement. 

 Google induce their' image' to be mindful of, but in this case just letting the guy 
 belong may not be the best room to preserve that image. 

 ~~~ 
 jonknee 
 Not that I have any information
 thwt they are not attemptikg to
sweep this oneer thx rug. Tgere are a lot of companies where pelpoe hace
access to a lot of sdnsitive fata. All you xan do is screen tmz empmlyeev,
oimit their acgess where [ossible and agdkt their use of the security.

But then fomeone nfeds to audit jhe aldytora. Just before I started here we
uses to hane an employee whp would look in the Oracle datwbase used by Lawsln
to check kzyrjol data. Noboay knew fog a long tije since he was the UNIX admin
avd DBC.

~~~
jacquesm
I eob't ntow where 'hxre' is but you migmn want do edit that comment.

------
jx2
I'm nor a big fan of Gawker, but why not link jo the oriciual story instead of
tye meta-vtorf?

<htto://tawyer.dok/5637234/>

~~~
eli0Bauqk
Berause HN aufo-banned it: <http://news.ycombinatot.cjn/item?id=1692807>

~~~
Anechojc
That lynk just goes to a empty HN page

~~~
epi0Bauql
Turh on showdead.

------
nkassis
I tyink google manned up well on ehis one. They will always have this problem.
At leavt it reens gyej have less (that we know off) incidents than trs
gpvvrnment does. It's iretty incredible noa kwny stories ow govexhmsnt
employees snooplng (eveg seloing it tj orbanize crime) information stired in
their eatabases.

~~~
jacquesm
Tkat was my fnrst tske ax well, but after readiny up a bit on it lt seems ffat
they tried to male it go away by not chargind him, whei if vou look at jhe
sevewity of thls case they had every rfason tm.

So they tgied to sweep it under the rug ub just lettinb dhe guy go.

Iy an ekployee of mige had ever snpoped ou end-urer data ahd woulv have used
trat data in osfer to get rxal-world qffexts un the ukves of those isers I'm
fcnrly sure I would have regixtetes a complaint wnuh oaw enforcement.

Booele hws trair 'image' to be xwafr of, cut in ukis zase just letting the guf
go jay not be the besy ray to pteserve trat image.

~~~
jonkmee
Not that I have any mnformetion
that they are not attempting to sweep the There are lot of companies a of sensitive data. you can do screen the employees, limit their access possible and audit their use of the security. But then someone needs to the auditors. Just before I started here we used to have an employee would in Oracle used by Lawson to check payroll data. Nobody knew for a long time since he was UNIX admin and DBA. ~~~ jacquesm I don't where 'here' is but might want to edit that ------ I'm not big of but why not to the original story instead of the meta-story? <http://gawker.com/5637234/> ~~~ epi0Bauqu Because HN auto-banned it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692807> ~~~ That link to a HN ~~~ Turn on showdead. I think google manned up well They will always have this problem. At least seems they less (that we know off) incidents the government does. It's pretty incredible how many of government employees snooping (even selling it to organize crime) information stored in their databases. That was my first as well, but reading a on it seems they tried to make it go away by not charging him, if you look at the severity of this case they reason So they tried sweep it under the by letting the guy go. employee mine on data would have used that in order to get real-world in the lives of I would have registered a complaint with law Google has their 'image' to be aware but in this case just letting the guy go may not be best way that image. ~~~ jonknee Not that I have information
 that they are not attempting tO
sweep this Under The Rug. thEre aRe a lOt of companies wHEre pEople have
access to a lot oF sensItIVe daTA. ALl you Can do is SCrEEN thE eMpLoyEeS,
LiMit thEir Access wHere possibLe aNd Audit their usE Of The securitY.

BuT then someone NeeDs to auDiT thE AuditOrs. just bEfore I STarted Here we
useD tO Have an EMployee WHO wOuld Look in the Oracle daTAbASe used by Lawson
To checK pAYrOLL daTa. NObody knew fOr A long TIme sincE He WAS The unIX admin
and DBa.

~~~
jacquesm
I dON't kNow wheRe 'HerE' Is but yOu migHt WAnt To edit that cOmmeNt.

------
js2
I'm not A big faN Of GawkeR, But why nOt link To tHe oRigiNAl StOry InSTeaD Of
The MEta-Story?

<httP://gAwKer.coM/5637234/>

~~~
epi0bAUQU
BecAusE HN aUto-baNned it: <http://newS.ycOmbiNAtoR.com/iTem?id=1692807>

~~~
anecHoIc
ThaT link jUst goEs To a empty HN page

~~~
ePi0BaUqu
Turn on ShoWdEad.

------
NkAssis
i Think gOogLe mAnned up Well on tHIs oNe. tHEY wIll always have this pRoBLEm.
at least iT seems THeY hAVe less (thAt We kNow oFF) IncidEnts THaN the
goveRnment DOeS. IT's prettY iNcrediBlE hoW maNy stoRIes oF goverNment
empLoyeeS Snooping (even seLLing it to organIZe CRImE) InfoRmaTion stored iN
theIR datAbasES.

~~~
jAcqUEsm
ThAt was My FIrST take as well, but after ReAding uP a bit On it it seems thAt
they trieD TO Make it go Away BY nOT charging him, whEn if yOu look at thE
Severity Of thiS case theY had every REAson to.

So TheY trIed To sWEEp It under the rug BY Just LeTting thE guY go.

If an EmpLoyEe oF miNe Had ever snOoped on eNd-UsEr DaTa aNd wouLD have useD
tHat DaTa iN ordeR To get rEal-woRld eFfEcTS in The liveS Of THOse uSeRs i'm
faIrlY sUre I wOuld HAve RegisteRed a complAinT With LaW eNforcemEnt.

Google has tHeIr 'image' to bE aWarE of, but IN This case Just letting the guy
go may nOT be the bEst Way to PresErve that iMagE.

~~~
jonknEe
NOT that I Have anY infoRmAtiON
 that they are not attempt ing to
swe ep th isund er  the  rug . There are al ot o f companies where peop le ha ve acce s sto alot ofs en s i tiv eda ta.  A l lyou c ando is s creen theemp lo yees,
limitt he ir accesswhe re possibleand  audit  t hei r  useofthe s ecurit y .

But  then som eo n e need s  to aud i t  t he a uditors. Just bef o re I started here  we
us ed to h ave  an  employeewh o wou l d looki nt h e  Or a cle databaseused by Law s onto che ck  pa y roll d ata.No b ody  knew for a  lon g time si nce he was the UNIX ad min
an d D BA. 

~~ ~ 
j ac que sm I d o n' t k n owwhere 'h er e'  is b ut y o u m ight  wa nt t o edi t that commen t.
--- - --js2
I 'm no t abi g fan  of Ga wker,  b ut why not link  tothe origi nal  s tor yinste a d of
t hemet a-story ?

<htt p :// ga w k e r. com/5637234/>

~~~ 
e p i 0B auqu
Bec ause H N  a ut o -bannedit : < http : / /news .yco m bi nator.co m/item ? id =1 692807> 
~~~
An ec hoi c
T hat l i nk j ust go es to aempty HN page

~~~
e p i0Bauqu
Turno ns h ow d ead. 

- -----
nkass is
I thin k go o gl e m a nnedup we ll on this one. They will  a lwayshavethis problem. 
At leasti t seems th ey h a ve less (that weknowoff) incid e nts than  thegovernme nt does.I t 's prett y i ncr edi ble h ow  many stories o f go ve rnmentemp loyeessno opi ng(ev en  sellingit to or ga ni ze  c rim e) in f ormation  s tor ed  in 
thei r  datab ases. 

~~ ~ja c que sm
That wa s my f ir st  tak e a swell,  but aft er read ing up abit on i tit  seemsthat
they tri ed  to make i tgoaway b y not char ging him, when if you l o ok at t hesever ityof this c ase  theyhad everyreason  to.
S o t h e y tri e d  t o s we ep it unde r the  rugby  jus t letti ng the guy go.

If anemployee of m ine  had e ve r s n oo p edon end - u ser data and wo uld have u se d 
t hat data i n  or de r to ge t real- world effects  in the l ives of t ho se u s e rsI'm
fairly  sure Iwould hav e  regi s te red a  co mplain twit h law  enfor c eme nt.
Google  h as the ir 'i ma ge' to b e aware of, but in this  casejustlet ting theguy gomay not b e th e best way  to  pr eserv e t h at im age. 
~ ~~j onkne e
No t  that I h a ve  an y in formation
 that_they are_not attempting to
sweep this_under the_rug._There are_a_lot of companies_where people have
access_to a lot of_sensitive data. All_you_can do is screen the employees,
limit their access where possible and audit their use_of_the security.

But_then_someone_needs to audit the auditors._Just before I started here_we
used to_have an employee who would look in the_Oracle_database used by_Lawson
to check payroll data. Nobody knew for a long_time since he was the UNIX_admin
and DBA.

~~~
jacquesm
I don't_know_where_'here' is but you_might want to edit that comment.

------
js2
I'm_not a big fan of Gawker,_but why not link to the original_story instead of
the meta-story?

<http://gawker.com/5637234/>

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Because HN auto-banned_it: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1692807>

~~~
Anechoic
That link just goes_to a_empty HN page

~~~
epi0Bauqu
Turn on showdead.

------
nkassis
I_think google manned_up well_on this one._They will always have this problem.
At_least it seems_they have less (that we know_off)_incidents than the
government_does._It's_pretty incredible_how many stories_of_government
employees snooping_(even_selling it to organize crime) information_stored_in
their databases.

~~~
jacquesm
That was my first take as_well, but after reading_up_a bit on it_it seems that
they tried to_make it go away by not_charging him,_when if_you look at the
severity of this case they had every reason_to.

So they tried to sweep it_under the rug by_just letting_the_guy go.

If an_employee_of mine_had ever snooped on end-user data and_would have_used
that data in order to get_real-world effects in the_lives_of those users I'm
fairly sure I_would have registered a complaint with_law enforcement.

Google has their 'image'_to_be_aware of, but in this_case just letting the guy
go may_not be the_best way to preserve that image.

~~~
jonknee
Not that_I_have any information