[cmrdporcupine]

Pretty inexcusable by 2015. FB was hardly a new company at that point.

Every Googler gets the message that you keep your mitts off private information in logs (or get terminated) drilled into them in their first week of training. Logs access is a) restricted b) audited c) tiered and d) enforced. That was the case in 2011 when I started and it's the case now.

Not saying Google is perfect, but it's not like companies like FB didn't have a template for privacy standards that they could have followed.

All that said, but back then I just personally assumed that this is how FB was operating :-( I am hoping they've improved since.

[underseacables]

I know an engineer, a security engineer at Google who is pretty well-known, who went to work at Google specifically so he could get at peoples personal data. I don’t know if he actually does it, but he boasted quite openly for years that he wanted to be the “architect“ and see everything and know everyone’s secrets. He is now a highly placed Google security employee.

[jeffbee]

There are no “architect” roles at google. Most people outside anti-abuse roles have no access to user data, and even the abuse people use audited frontend tools that formalize the policy that the viewer must reference the ticket they are working on and the limited data they need to see.

People with direct access to production data streams mostly see encrypted data. There’s a big, annoying technical scheme in place to make sure private or sensitive data is elided whenever a message is printed in plain text to a log. It stretches from the protocol compiler all the way down to C++ stream operators.

I’m not saying nobody ever sees user data. Sometimes you need to find out why an email is crashing the mailer. But those accesses are limited in scope, auditable, and available to relatively few people.

In my opinion it isn’t really the Facebooks and Googles of the world you need to worry about, it’s the companies with massive collections of user data and without the technical chops to protect it. Like Dropbox.

[bluefirebrand]

> There are no “architect” roles at google

In this case I suspect "The Architect" is a reference to the character in the Matrix films. The character who has visibility into every corner of the Matrix and full knowledge about everything going on inside it.

Could be wrong. Either way I very much doubt it is related to a specific role at Google.

[underseacables]

Sorry yes, you are correct. He wanted to be the Matrix architect

[sthatipamala]

If that was his plan, he picked the entirely wrong company to accomplish it. There are many layers of access control at Google that would make that impossible regardless of how highly placed he is. He'd be better off at a smaller company with less mature security tools.

[cghendrix]

That’s pretty disturbing.