We're currently in discussion with them to see if we can resolve this licensing change to our satisfaction. If not, we'll do the obvious (use a different database) as you said.

On or about August 12, 2024, Google Operations sent a disclosure[1] to administrators via the Workspace Admin Security Alert Center informing them their data was leaked, but 1) incorrectly stated the information we received was correct, and 2) incorrectly said that Google asked customers who received other customers' data to delete said data. I know these are incorrect because we received another customer's data and we were not asked to delete it.

I'm not going to share my commentary on the leak, but I thought folks here might want to know.

[1] https://imgur.com/a/DhJNlIa

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41231195

Points: 7

# Comments: 0

Right. And they're saying it would be best if they weren't accidentally doing that.

> DEI isn't an anti-discrimination effort, they are actively carrying out discrimination

Why do you think this? All efforts I've seen have been to correct for the discrimination currently occurring in the system.

> You admit that women are overrepresented

I don't. We're still substantially less than 50% of engineering.

> The evidence in tech company hiring actually shows women are favored over men

If this were true, men would be the minority. Women like money just as much as men do, and would leverage that non-existent favoritism to get those high paying jobs.

Even though some people would call me that, I've always hated that term/ideology. I wish companies would shift their mindset to, "a candidate that adds to our diversity". E.g. my current employer has done a really good job at not discriminating too much against women and attracting women, so we're well above industry average in our woman:NB:man ratio so it's more representative of the source population. We haven't done as well with regard to racial and age non-discrimination. As we do better in either of those two categories, the definition of "a candidate that adds to our diversity" will change.

> We have already selected a male candidate for the internship so it'd be best if the next one was a woman

This is both true and legal (though I wish it included NBs as well). The more candidates you select from a given demographic, the probability increases that your organization is participating in a discriminatory system. If it makes it more palatable, reword it in your head by tacking on at the end, "... so we can be somewhat reassured we're not contributing to gender discrimination."

> Your no-hire vote should have more justification since the candidate is a woman

Studies have shown even women evaluate women more harshly than they evaluate men. Extra justification is warranteed when gender is known or implied and the reviewer is likely to have unconscious bias. That's why better hiring systems try to hide gender on the initial application, so you can be reasonably reassured gender is not a factor. (That said, there are a lot of gender implications on many applications, so it can be tough to hide gender completely).

> The reality is that we need a strong legal ruling against these type of things

Alternatively, guaranteed job placement into one's chosen profession would help everyone indiscriminately. Trying to ban anti-discrimination efforts serves only status quo biases.

> too "problematic" to bring this up and the risk for retaliation is insanely high

I agree this is a risk. Surely there are some people who "bring this up" in a bigoted way and are rightfully fired, but I suspect there's a number of people who, with a gentle reframing, can see how their views are problematic and can learn the knowledge gaps that caused them to come to the wrong conclusion. From the company's perspective, they're doing anti-discrimination work, and an employee objection sounds like they're pro-discrimination. It's a bilateral failure to communicate in an at-will employment relationship.

Getting the DEA to reschedule it would involve more time and more influence than direct power.

That said, I think he should do both, AND that issuing this pardon may double as a good way of influencing the DEA.

> What Information Was Involved? On December 6, 2023, we concluded that the information included usernames and hashed passwords. For some customers, other information was also included, such as names, contact information, last four digits of social security numbers, dates of birth and/or secret questions and answers. However, our data analysis is continuing, and we will provide additional notices as appropriate.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38716853

Points: 3

# Comments: 1

Apple should bundle iMessage access for Android into iCloud's subscription and release an official Android app. Maybe some eyes from the DOJ will get that on Apple's roadmap (I can dream, right?).

The issue isn't so much Beeper as it is the open the door to anyone on the Internet. I.e. Apple probably cares little about Beeper itself, and more about the risk of 3rd party software accessing its services/users.

A good number of us have had to combat spam/abuse in our careers, and we're sympathetic to the plight.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinhood_Markets

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ut/salt-lake-city/crime

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/is-salt-lake-city-r...

https://youtu.be/UN8bJb8biZU