Google to shut down Google+ after failing to disclose user data leak
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-plus-security-brea...> Google announced it is shutting down the consumer version of its online social network after fixing a bug exposing private data in as many as 500,000 accounts. This March, as Facebook was coming under global scrutiny over the harvesting of personal data for Cambridge Analytica, Google discovered a skeleton in its own closet: a bug in the API for Google+ had been allowing third-party app developers to access the data not just of users who had granted permission, but of their friends. If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s almost exactly the scenario that got Mark Zuckerberg dragged in front of the US Congress. The parallel was not lost on Google, and the company chose not to disclose the data leak, the Wall Street Journal revealed Monday, in order to avoid the public relations headache and potential regulatory enforcement. Disclosure will likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal”, Google policy and legal officials wrote in a memo obtained by the Journal. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress”, the memo said, referring to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai. The disclosure would also invite “immediate regulatory interest”.[...]
da quando fu fatto, ritengo che G+ servisse come foglia di fico per forzare l'unificazione dele identita' degli account di tutte le properties acquisite e combinate (lo scrissi da qualche parte all'epoca) se e' il breach e' stato chiuso a marzo (prima dell'entrata in vigore del GDPR il 26/5/18, termine noto da 2 anni), perche' non andava bene dire del breach prima del 26/5/18, cosa che avrebbe tolto ogni possibile dubbio e aspettare a dirlo ad ottobre ? non vedo una relazione tra un breach (risolto) di molti mesi prima e la decisione di chiudere una divisione. non c'e' un senso economico. se invece la chisura del breach fosse stata dopo l'entrata in vigore del gdpr, g avrebbe rischiato una pesante sanzione. avrebbe perfettamente senso dire "lo abbiamo scoperto prima", e "non succedera' piu" (tanto che lo abbiamo chiuso) pensiero troppo fantasioso ? On 09/10/2018 08:58, Alberto Cammozzo wrote:
<https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/08/google-plus-security-brea...>
Google announced it is shutting down the consumer version of its online social network after fixing a bug exposing private data in as many as 500,000 accounts.
This March, as Facebook was coming under global scrutiny over the harvesting of personal data for Cambridge Analytica, Google discovered a skeleton in its own closet: a bug in the API for Google+ had been allowing third-party app developers to access the data not just of users who had granted permission, but of their friends.
If that sounds familiar, it’s because it’s almost exactly the scenario that got Mark Zuckerberg dragged in front of the US Congress. The parallel was not lost on Google, and the company chose not to disclose the data leak, the Wall Street Journal revealed Monday, in order to avoid the public relations headache and potential regulatory enforcement.
Disclosure will likely result “in us coming into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal”, Google policy and legal officials wrote in a memo obtained by the Journal. It “almost guarantees Sundar will testify before Congress”, the memo said, referring to the company’s CEO, Sundar Pichai. The disclosure would also invite “immediate regulatory interest”.[...]
_______________________________________________ nexa mailing list nexa@server-nexa.polito.it https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa
Il giorno mar 9 ott 2018 alle ore 11:06 Stefano Quintarelli < stefano@quintarelli.it> ha scritto:
da quando fu fatto, ritengo che G+ servisse come foglia di fico per forzare l'unificazione dele identita' degli account di tutte le properties acquisite e combinate (lo scrissi da qualche parte all'epoca) [...] pensiero troppo fantasioso ?
E' esattamente l'opinione di Bob Mottram, ideatore e sviluppatore del progetto Freedombone ( https://freedombone.net/ ) My main memory of that system was something which became known as the
*nymwars*. Google tried to copy Facebook's "real names" policy, and that had some pretty bad outcomes. [...]
It had been known for at least two decades that consistent pseudonyms don't
lead to the kind of bad behavior which was claimed, but advertisers (Google's real customers) wanted the "robust social graph" based upon names which they could cross reference against other banking and purchasing records from data brokers. It was an example of where the interests of Google's users and their customers came into conflict.
https://blog.freedombone.net/the-final-and-ultimate-demise-of-google Giacomo
participants (3)
-
Alberto Cammozzo -
Giacomo Tesio -
Stefano Quintarelli