TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Senators Demand Google Hand Over Internal Memo Urging Google+ Cover-Up

114 点作者 nopacience超过 6 年前

7 条评论

sctb超过 6 年前
Previously: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18212759" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=18212759</a>.
kodablah超过 6 年前
&gt; Three Republican senators have sent a letter to Google today demanding the company hand over an internal memo based on which Google decided to cover up a Google+ data leak instead of going public as most companies do.<p>That&#x27;s a loaded first sentence. Here&#x27;s another way of writing it: &quot;Three Republican senators have sent a letter to Google today asking the company to please provide internal memo based on which Google decided to not disclose a Google+ bug that could have leaked data instead of going public as very few companies would.&quot;<p>Or break it up if that&#x27;s too wordy. ZDNet and the writer of this article should be ashamed of themselves. How much more clearly can you out yourself as biased garbage?<p>To the contents of the letter itself [0], just answer the 8 questions straight up, and give the memo. Doesn&#x27;t appear like a witch hunt quite yet. On questions 3, 4, and 5 just make it clear that software bugs are rampant, many have the ability to get bad things when exploited, and on 6 either inundate them with a deluge of security bugs or explain that there are probably thousands. On #7, the answer better be an emphatic &quot;yes&quot; or I will be very disappointed.<p>If it becomes more political, there needs to be legal requirements for disclosing all security vulns (instead of just exploited ones) or they need to recognize it&#x27;s untenable to ask for them. Can&#x27;t have it both ways and just pick a company&#x27;s vuln because of an article about them and not ask other companies for theirs.<p>0 (PDF) - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.commerce.senate.gov&#x2F;public&#x2F;_cache&#x2F;files&#x2F;4852b311-0953-4ac8-ac43-a91dde229cc1&#x2F;E300DA0C7659678AE0AE37AEB9746200.thune-wicker-moran-letter-to-google-10.11.18.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.commerce.senate.gov&#x2F;public&#x2F;_cache&#x2F;files&#x2F;4852b311...</a>
评论 #18220993 未加载
评论 #18221489 未加载
评论 #18221021 未加载
评论 #18220869 未加载
cirenehc超过 6 年前
I have never worked at any company that publishes every security bug discovered internally. This is ridiculous.
评论 #18220897 未加载
评论 #18223024 未加载
评论 #18220774 未加载
评论 #18220803 未加载
评论 #18221069 未加载
IX-103超过 6 年前
Since the &quot;memo&quot; is part of a discussion between lawyers and execs wouldn&#x27;t the memo be considered privileged? That doesn&#x27;t mean that Senators can&#x27;t ask, but if you set the expectation of handing out privileged information whenever you&#x27;re asked it kinda makes &quot;privileged&quot; communication not mean anything.
ccnafr超过 6 年前
Please, do hand over that memo. I&#x27;ll be watching this closely. I&#x27;d love to read the entire thing, not just the parts that WSJ selected.
评论 #18220825 未加载
Bhilai超过 6 年前
Google admitted that they don&#x27;t keep any logs around. So in the absence of logs, I am not sure how they are making the claim that their API was not abused. So there is definitely more transparency required about their internal investigation and how they are so certain. Just because Google has a great security team, I would not put my blind faith on them.
评论 #18222551 未加载
评论 #18221147 未加载
fredgrott超过 6 年前
Its somewhat a miss-leading title....<p>Can you cover-up legal activity? No, of course not..non-story here