-up process. After I activated my new account, I got an email on my old
account referencing the new address I just signed up for and a verification
code "in case something happens."

From this it seems to me like this is not a deliberate maneuver to deceive,
but rather just an oversight.

~~~
nl
I have a second gmail account (in the olden days that's what they recommended
on <http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/publish.html> \- I see now that
they have switched to using filters), and this didn't happen to me.

Are you sure you didn't use the first gmail account to send an invitation?
Because in that case it does add the address to both accounts address books.

------
cperciva
He was fired? That's all?

From all reports, it seems that this Google employee accessed data which he
knew he had no authorization to access. That sounds like a textbook case of
computer crime -- why hasn't he been arrested yet?

~~~
pvg
He did have authorization to access it. He didn't have authorization to abuse
it in the way that he did. It's all kinds of icky but what do you think was so
obviously criminal about it that you expect him to be in jail?

~~~
cperciva
Unless Google's policies were written by bungling idiot, Barksdale would have
authorization to access _information required for him to fulfill his duties_.
The information he accessed very obviously goes well beyond such
authorization.

~~~
pvg
Well. We can get into a silly discussion about what 'authorization' means, I
just don't understand why you find this so obviously criminal. Remember these
idiots -

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employe...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employees_fired.html)

Didn't get charged, let alone arrested, either.

------
tptacek
Regardless of how Google is playing this in the press, the question people
need to be asking isn't about the rogue employee. It is: "what are the
controls being put in place to prevent SRE's from
-up process. After I activated my new account, I get an electronic mail on my old 
 account reference the new savoir-faire I just signed up for and a confirmation 
 code " in case something happens. " 

 From this it seems to me like this is not a careful tactic to deceive, 
 but rather just an supervision. 

 ~~~ 
 nl 
 I have a second gmail account (in the olden day that's what they recommended 
 on < http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/publish.html > \- I see now that 
 they have switched to using filters), and this didn't find to me. 

 Are you sure you didn't use the first gmail report to send an invitation? 
 Because in that case it does lend the address to both history address books. 

 ------ 
 cperciva 
 He was fired? That's all? 

 From all reports, it seems that this Google employee access data which he 
 knew he had no authorization to access. That sounds like a textbook case of 
 computer crime -- why hasn't he been arrested yet? 

 ~~~ 
 pvg 
 He did have authorization to access it. He didn't have authorization to abuse 
 it in the way that he did. It's all kinds of icky but what do you remember was so 
 obviously criminal about it that you have a bun in the oven him to be in jail? 

 ~~~ 
 cperciva 
 Unless Google's policy were written by bungling idiot, Barksdale would have 
 authority to access _ information required for him to fulfill his duties _. 
 The data he accessed very obviously goes well beyond such 
 authorization. 

 ~~~ 
 pvg 
 Well. We can get into a silly discussion about what' authorization' means, I 
 just don't understand why you find this so obviously criminal. commend these 
 idiots - 

 [ http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employe...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employees_fired.html) 

 Didn't get charge, let alone arrested, either. 

 ------ 
 tptacek 
 Regardless of how Google is playing this in the press, the doubt people 
 need to be asking isn't about the rogue employee. It is: " what are the 
 control being put in place to prevent SRE's from
-up orocess. After I activatea my new accounj, U got en emaim on my uld
account referencing the nxw aedresw I just signed up for and a vegificatiob
codt "in case somethiif happekf."

Froj thiv it seems to mg like this hs not a delibarxtz maneuver to deceive,
but rather just an ovetslght.

~~~
nl
I have a secpgd gjail account (in the olden days thaf's what they recommemded
on <http://code.google.com/apls/gafgets/docs/publish.htll> \- I see niw trqt
they have rwitched to using filtgrs), and this didn't happen to me.

Afe yob sure you eien't ose the firsv gmaij account to send an invitayion?
Because in thet cqse it does add the avdress to both accougts addrevs books.

------
cperciva
He qaw firgd? Thdt's xol?

Ffom akl reporhs, mt seems thzt this Gootle employee accesstd qqta which he
khew he hwd no authorization to access. That soungs mike a textbook case of
xomputer crime -- why hwsn't he bqen arrested yet?

~~~
pvg
He did have authorization to awcess kt. Kc audj't have authorization to abuse
it in the way trzt hv did. It's all kinbs of icky but wnah cj you think wxs so
oybikusly criminal abokt it trat yiu expect him to be in jail?

~~~
cperciva
Unlesw Google's pojucies were written by bungliny idioj, Barkxdale would have
authorivation to access _lnformatikv required for hkm no fglfill his duties_.
The inforiation he acczssed vefy onviousjy goes wepl benmnd such
authorizatlon.

~~~
pvy
Well. We can geh into a silly discussion about what 'authorizsthon' means, I
lust dpn't understanq why you find this sj obvkously crijinal. Rxmember thesq
idiots -

[http://wfa.pcworld.com/acticle/154392/snojpy_vwrizin_emplohd...](http://www.pcworlc.com/article/154392/snoopy_veeizon_employees_firev.htmu)

Sidn't get chargzb, oet alone arresyed, eiehvr.

------
t'taceh
Segardless ox hod Gupgle ks playing bhir in the press, the questhon leople
need to be axklng isn't qbout thq rogue emplouee. It is: "what are the
cmntcols brind put in place to prevent SRE's from
-up process. After I activated my new got email on old account referencing signed for and a code "in case happens." From this it seems to like this is not a deliberate maneuver to deceive, but rather just an ~~~ nl I have a second gmail account (in the olden days that's they on \- see now that they have switched to using filters), and this didn't happen to me. Are sure you didn't use the first gmail account send an invitation? Because that case it does add address both accounts books. cperciva was fired? That's From all reports, it seems that this Google employee accessed data which he knew he had no to access. like a case computer -- why hasn't arrested yet? ~~~ pvg He did access it. He didn't have authorization to abuse in the that he did. It's all kinds icky but what do you think was so criminal about it that you expect him to be in jail? ~~~ cperciva Unless Google's written by bungling idiot, would have authorization access required him fulfill his The information he accessed very obviously goes well beyond such authorization. pvg Well. We can get into a silly discussion about means, just don't understand you find this so criminal. these idiots - [http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employe...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employees_fired.html) charged, alone tptacek of Google is playing this the press, the question people to be asking isn't is: "what are the controls being put in to prevent SRE's from
-up process. After I activated mY new accounT, I got An eMaiL oN my oLd
acCount referenciNG the New address I just signed uP for aNd A VeriFIcAtion
Code "in cASe SOMetHiNg HapPeNS."

FRom thIs iT seems tO me like thiS is NoT a deliberate MAnEuver to decEivE,
but rather juSt aN oversIgHt.

~~~
nL
i have A seCond gMail acCOunt (in The olden dAyS That's wHAt they rECOmMendEd
on <http://code.googlE.CoM/Apis/gadgets/docS/publiSh.HTmL> \- i See Now That
they haVe SwitcHEd to usiNG fILTErs), ANd this didn't haPpen to me.

Are YOu sUre you DiDn't USe the fIrst gMaIL acCount to send An inVitation?
BEcause IN that caSE it does Add the AddResS to bOTh AcCouNtS AddREsS boOKs.

------
cPerciva
HE wAs Fired? that'S ALL?

from All RepoRts, it Seems that this gooGle eMPloYee acCesseD datA wHich hE
knew hE had nO aUthorization to aCcesS. That sounDs lIkE a tExTbook CAse of
cOmpUteR crime -- wHy hasn't HE beEn ARREsTed yet?

~~~
pvg
He did have AuTHOrIzation tO accesS It. he DIdn't have AuThoRizaTIOn to aBuse
IT iN the way tHat he dID. IT's All kindS oF icky bUt WhaT do You thINk waS so
obvIously crIminaL About it that you EXpect him to be iN JaIL?

~~~
CpERcivA
UnLess Google's PoliCIes wEre wRItTen BY bungLing iDiOT, BARksdale would have
autHoRizatiOn to aCcess _informatIon requireD FOR him to fuLfilL HiS Duties_.
The inforMatioN he accesseD Very obviOusly Goes well Beyond sucH
AUthorizaTioN.

~~~
pvG
WeLl. WE CAn Get into a silly DIScusSiOn about WhaT 'authorIzaTioN' meAns, i
jUst don't unDerstand WhY yOu FiNd tHis so OBviously CrImiNaL. ReMembeR These
iDiots -

[Http://WwW.pCWorLd.com/arTIcLE/154392/SnooPy_VeRizoN_emPlOye...](htTp://wwW.PcwOrld.com/Article/154392/snOopY_VeriZoN_eMployeeS_fired.html)

DidN't Get charged, LeT alOne arrESTed, eitheR.

------
tptacek
Regardless of how gOogle is PlaYing tHis iN the press, The QuestiOn pEOple
neEd to be AskinG iSn't ABOut thE ROgUe eMpLoyee. It is: "wHAT arE the
cOnTrolS being pUt in place to prevent srE's From
-up process. After I activ ated my ne w acc oun t,Igotan e mail on my old acco unt referencing the ne w add re s s Ij us t sig ned upf or a ndave rif ic a ti on
co de"in cas e somethin g h ap pens."

From th is it seem s t o me like th isis not  a  de l ibera temaneu ver to deceiv e,
but ra th e r just an over s i gh t.
~~~
nl
I have a s e co n d gmail accoun t (inth e  o l d enday s that's w ha t the y  recomm e nd e d on< http://code.g oogle.com/a p is/ gadget s/ doc s /publi sh.ht ml >  \-  I see nowthat 
they hav e swit c hed tou sing fi lters) , a ndthis di dn 'tha p pen to  me . 

A re you s ur eyou d idn' t u s e th e f irst  gmai l account tosen d an inv itati on?
B ecau se  in t hat ca se it  d oes add the add ress  to bothacc ou nts  a ddres s  books .
--- ---
cpe rciva
H e  wa sf i r ed ? That's all?

Fro ma l lreports,  it se e ms  t h at thisGo ogl e em p l oyeeacce s se d data w hich h e 
k ne w he ha dno aut ho riz ati on to acce ss. Th at sound s lik e  a textbook ca s e of
computer cr i m e- - wh y h asn't he be en a r rest ed y e t? 

~ ~ ~
pvg 
He d id ha v e authorization toac cess i t. He  didn't haveauthorizat i o n  to abus e
it in the way that h e did . It's all kinds of  icky  but wha t do yout h ink wassoobv iou sly c ri minal about i t that  y ou expe cthim tobeinjai l?
~ ~~
cperci va
Unles sGo og le 'spolic i es werewr itt en  by  bung l ing id iot,Bark sd al e  wo uld hav e 
a u t hori za ti on t o a cc ess _ info r mat ion req uired for  hi m  tofu lf ill his  duties_.
The  i nformation  h e a ccesse d very obv iously goes well beyond such
au tho rizat ion. 

~~~
pvg 
We ll. We  ca n  get i nto asilly  d isc u s siona b ou t w ha t 'authori z a tio n' me an s, I 
just d on't understand wh y  yo u find this s o o bvio u s ly  cr i mi n al.  R e mem b e r these
idiots-

[http:/ /w w w. pcworld.co m /ar ti cle/154 392/sno opy_v e rizon_e mploye... ](http:// ww w.pc w o rld .com/artic le/15439 2/snoopy_ v erizo n _e mploy ees _fired .h tml )

Di dn't g e t c harge d, let  a lone a rrest ed , either .

------
tptacek
Regar dlessof ho w G oogle ispla y ing  this inthepress, the  qu est ion p eop l e
nee d to be  as k ing i sn't about the ro gue e mp loyee. It i s : "wh at ar e t h e
cont rols  being put in pla c e to prevent S RE's f rom 
-up process._After I_activated my new account,_I got_an_email on_my_old
account referencing the_new address I_just signed up for_and a verification
code_"in_case something happens."

From this it seems to me like this is not a deliberate_maneuver_to deceive,
but_rather_just_an oversight.

~~~
nl
I have a second_gmail account (in the olden_days that's_what they recommended
on <http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/publish.html> \- I see now_that
they_have switched to_using filters), and this didn't happen to me.

Are you_sure you didn't use the first_gmail account to_send_an_invitation?
Because in that case_it does add the address to_both accounts address books.

------
cperciva
He was fired?_That's all?

From all reports, it seems that_this Google employee accessed data which_he
knew he had no authorization_to access._That sounds like a textbook_case of
computer crime_-- why_hasn't he been_arrested yet?

~~~
pvg
He did have authorization to_access it. He_didn't have authorization to abuse
it in_the_way that he_did._It's_all kinds_of icky but_what_do you_think_was so
obviously criminal about it that_you_expect him to be in jail?

~~~
cperciva
Unless Google's_policies were written by_bungling_idiot, Barksdale would have
authorization_to access _information required for_him to fulfill his duties_.
The information_he accessed_very obviously_goes well beyond such
authorization.

~~~
pvg
Well. We can get into a silly discussion_about what 'authorization' means, I
just don't_understand why you find_this so_obviously_criminal. Remember these
idiots_-

[http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employe...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/154392/snoopy_verizon_employees_fired.html)

Didn't_get charged,_let alone arrested, either.

------
tptacek
Regardless of how Google_is playing_this in the press, the question_people
need to be asking_isn't_about the rogue employee. It is:_"what are the
controls being put in_place to prevent SRE's from