[mbStavola]

No but he was seeking it, from the email in the RubyCentral article and directly from TFA:

> I have no interest in any PII, commercially or otherwise. As my private email published by Ruby Central demonstrates, my entire proposal was based solely on company-level information, with no information about individuals included in any way.

Here Andre is downplaying his ask of the logs. Even if Andre didn't get them, the logs were desired. Had Ruby Central acquiesced the logs would've been parsed and sold. Might not be an issue for you but I am frankly not interested in having any data shared or sold like this.

[Xylakant]

I don't even understand why RubyCentral included the proposal to use the log data in the post about a security incident. Whatever we may think of the proposal, the only purpose of including it in this place is to smear Andre.

The incident is clear cut and makes RubyCentral staff look incompetent. They cut off access to 1password and did not even consider that someone may have a copy of the credentials somewhere? As in "maybe in their head"? Rotating shared credentials in such a situation is security 101 and they failed. And when Andre notifies them that they failed, instead of quietly saying "Thanks, we've fixed that", they make it a security incident and include - without any further context - a single email from something that must have been a longer conversation.

[mbStavola]

Without more details, it's hard for me to nail down the exact motivations at play here.

My current read is that RC majorly botched the takeover, demonstrated gaps in security know-how, and then retroactively framed everything as a problem with André. The details of the logs are mostly immaterial to the rest of the claims, but are still suspicious enough to spice up the announcement. I believe this because, at the moment, I don't see anything in the original RC post that wasn't satisfactorily explained by this post.

[bigiain]

> I don't even understand why RubyCentral included the proposal to use the log data in the post about a security incident.

Yeah you do. They're intentionally smearing him. (And they're no better at doing that than they are at security.)

[Xylakant]

Yes, that’s what they do. But I still fail to grasp how that helps them - they still look pretty bad. Worse, actually - if you want to frame Andre as the bad actor, then my next question is “You knew that a bad actor had previous access, why in the name of $deity did you not double check that they have no access?”

[GreenWatermelon]

Because they're woefully incompetent, they thought that would help them.

[____mr____]

It was probably included as a motive for Andre to keep unauthorized access

[deng]

> Had Ruby Central acquiesced the logs would've been parsed and sold.

Which the privacy policy of RubyCentral allows, so I don't get why they suddenly have ethical problems with that, apart of course from throwing shade on Andre. Parsing logs for company access is what basically everyone does, and frankly, I don't see the problem with getting leads from data like this. That has nothing to do with "selling PII".

[skywhopper]

Yes. While I personally don’t like this practice, it is so widespread and there is so much demand for it that it’s not unusual given their privacy policy makes explicit mention of it.

The best argument you could make is that gem owners should be able to see “who” downloads their gems. If they were self-hosting the packages, they would have that data. Of course, charging for it is the ookier part.

[deng]

Say you provide a service for free and are desperate for corporate sponsorship. Who wouldn't look at what companies are using your service and contact them with "Hey, I'm seeing you are using our service, can we have a chat"? You basically have no other means of contacting companies nowadays without getting into trouble for cold-calling/spamming.

[darkwater]

Honestly, I can't really see what you are reading through the lines here. Are you by any chance involved with RubyGems / RubyCentral? In my case, I'm just a bystander and not even a Ruby developer (but I worked in a Ruby company in the past so I know the ecosystem).

EDIT: oh, you might be referring to the RubyCentral statement. I didn't read the original security incident text, so my bad here. Sorry.

[mbStavola]

I am definitely not affiliated with either, moreso my opinion is considerably more negative of the new maintainers (both for the method of takeover and their handling of this incident). Quite frankly, I don't even know why you would even ask if I was.

I do not feel like I'm reading between any lines here-- Ruby Central directly showed that André Arko asked for the data to sell in order to cover the on-call fees. Yes, they have reason to smear him and shouldn't be trusted, but André confirms that he asked for the logs. None of that is up for debate, these are just the facts!

What we can argue about is 1) whether this is meaningfully different than what RC does already as noted by their ToS and 2) whether or not company names derived from the HTTP logs is sensitive or whatever. It is my position that neither André nor RC should be selling this sort of usage data, regardless of motivation. Personally I think the monetization of such data is bad in general, but I understand not everyone feels the same. It just gives me the ick.

EDIT: Immediately after submitting this, I saw that you issued a correction. Bad timing on my part I suppose!