Slashdot Mirror
AOL CTO Shown the Door
BrewerDude writes "Reuters is reporting that AOL Chief Technical Officer Maureen Govern has resigned from the company. Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough? What do the slashdot readers think is the appropriate outcome of this fiasco?"
Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough?
Well, it would certainly be nice to see companies (and governments) go back to a model where "the buck stops here" and take responsibility for their actions. I don't know who ultimate thought "I know what let's do" and release these records for public consumption without even "anonymizing" them, but the CTO is an appropriately responsible party I would guess.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
From the summary: Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough? ...
Well, considering that others are shown to the door for working 20+ years, garnering good reviews, and creeping within a chip shot of expensive pension payoffs, it's probably reasonable to show this guy the door.
Probably the biggest crime, and one we'll never be in on, is how golden a parachute this guy jumped with.
Let it fit the crime.
AOL should release - without names, of course - the text of all the searches executed by recent AOL CTOs.
Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough? What do the slashdot readers think is the appropriate outcome of this fiasco?
The paradox is that the one who takes overall responsibility is axed, yet they have learned from the experience. They have also undoubtably done many things right, which their successor may goof on.
It's trading a devil you know for a devil you don't. Should have just docked her pay, made her stand in a corner of sommat.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
How about only being able to go online with AOL dialup?
AOL Chief Technical Officer Maureen Govern has resigned from the company. Is this an appropriate penalty for releasing 20 million keyword search results, or is it too harsh, or not harsh enough? What do the slashdot readers think is the appropriate outcome of this fiasco?
... or the CEO.
Assuming she honestly resigned, big kudos to her for taking the responsibility and the heat, and not passing the buck down to the people who need the paycheck. It's not often that a person in power will take the fall - most often, 100% of the blame gets placed on lower-level people who were just doing what they were told.
I'm sure she didn't make the decision or understand the ramifications - after all, she is a CTO. And hopefully there are some people at AOL who would have known that this was a bad idea. But in the end, it was up to her to prevent this from happening.
AOL probably found her keyword searches for: "CTO", "fortune 500", "availability", "resume"...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
During my first IT job, the CTO resigned when a server crashed and 2 weeks worth of orders and return information was lost. Tape backup procedures failed. Not sure if she was pushed out or if she voluntarily fell on her sword, but I felt then as I do now that it was the right thing to do. If you are the head of a department that fails to do their job in some egregious way, you should bear full responsibility and pay accordingly. Too many execs find ways to point blame below them. In my case, she could have easily fired the dweeb managing the backup tapes. He's the one who screwed up, right? Maybe he even lied about keeping up to date. This was 1995. Have I seen anything like it since? Nope.
2356894 new job
2356894 new job soon
2356894 macdonalds
2356894 mcdonalds
2356894 mcjob
2356894 postal service
2356894 going postal
2356894 guns
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
Tomato/Tomato
...I guess that only works when spoken.
Your right to privacy stops at the their colocated servers. Get with reality man.
To expect privacy you have to be conducting yourself in a PRIVATE manner. Broadcasting your search requests in PLAINTEXT over the internet to a server which does not [nor must] guarantee privacy is not conducting yourself in a private manner.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
You also have the right to read AOL's Term of Service and Privacy Policy when you use their free search engine.
You really are naive aren't you? You don't think that you bank keeps tabs on you? How about the state transit department when you use the automated (EZ-Pass, FastLane, whatever) payment system? What about the access card you use to get into work? Do you doubt that your gas station pumps don't know that you're going to put the cheap stuff in as soon as you swipe the card? The list goes on forever... get with it.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
Or was the CTO shoved onto her proverbial sword as public sacrifice to blow over the controversy?
? No no no! You clearly don't understand the business world, grasshopper...
She chose to "spend more time with her family", totally unrelated (in a golden-parachute-deflating sense) to the leak. No doubt the evil actions by her underlings, done entirely without her knowledge, made her job just too stressful to keep putting in those gruelling 10 hour workweeks for a paltry seven-figure salary.
Tsk! Did you even read the press releases? How can you remain skeptical in the face of such incontrovertible proof as the noble and cherished Press Release?
That's an interesting philosophical point, and one that's not really espoused by most of the philosophers on whose work our government is based. Is this something you believe personally, or is there a particular work you believe best defends this view? Because in the US, (and forgive me if you are not a US citizen), the right to privacy is an implied right, and not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It really only manifested itself in the 20th century after numerous Supreme Court decisions, and in those cases governs only a person's privacy from the government, not necessarily other private entities. Are you saying you think the right to privacy should extend further?
The GOVERNMENT can't search. When you search the internet with a search site, you are using a private or publicly owned companies services. You don't see the difference there? You have a right to bear arms as well, you come to my house with a gun and I do not have to let you in with it! That is MY right because that is my property. If you do not like the terms, use someone else's search engine. You do not have the inherent right to private searching capabilities from one of those companies. Even thinking you do or should is strange. If you want to search the internet from a site that does not save the results, find one and use it. That is your right. If you can't find one, don't search the internet or make your own search tool. That is your right as well.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
Or the Privacy Act of 1974, the most used and quoted privacy act in US history.
People confuse the 4th Amendment with the "right of privacy", when it is a very limited grant of privacy, that the government has to have a warrant to search through documents you have chosen to keep private in your own home, or the home itself.
The courts have constantly held that what you THROW AWAY or do in public (ie: speak), or do in your own home but in the plain view of the public (through an uncovered window) has no expectation of privacy. Using a search engine is accessing in the public and subject to their Terms of Use, and is not "private" in the traditional sense.
Just as if you dialed 411/information and asked them for a number "for a gunshop so I can kill me wife". A search engine is just a digital 411 in this respect, except they log the question instead of someone "listening". You can't expect privacy when accessing a publicly available service.
Real world case: Texas DA needed DNA to prove a case against a guy, but not enough evidence to get a warrant. They follow him, he spits on the sidewalk, they literally sample it an run DNA, get a match, which is used to obtain a warrant and get a sample from blood, which is used to tie him to a crime. He appeals, it is held up as he should not have an expectation of privacy for something he "throws away" in public.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Actually, it's not a philosophical point.
Constitutional law is based on the premise that you have all rights. There is no such thing as an "implied" right. This is specifically the intent of Amendment X, "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
Amendment IV speaks directly to limitations of governmental power in matters of individual privacy. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
So in that regard, the Bill of Rights does indeed recognize privacy as a fundamental right, and one explicitly stated even if the word "privacy" isn't used directly in the verbage.
Courts resolve conflicts between individual rights, in addition to interpreting limitations of Government in the abridgement of individual rights. It's not a question of "extending" privacy's reach, but rather resolving the conflict of an individual's right to privacy vs. other conflicting individual rights.
You mean this 4th amendment? The one that says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
I fail to see how that supports your position. There is a difference between expecting documents sitting in your filing cabinet or on your hard drive to remain personal (which is supported by the 4th amendment), and information that you knowingly and intentionally turn over to a third party, while agreeing to their TOS that specifically state that they are retaining these records, and specifically require you to waive your right for privacy. If I take my medical history and tape it to the side of my mailbox or the windshield of my car, is that information still confidential? In the eyes of the law, it is not. If you post your medical history on the internet for all eyes to see, is it still confidential? Nope. If you mail me a personal document, is there some law that says I have to burn it and not store it in my filing cabinet? Nope. As soon as you release information to a third party, unless you have a confidentiality agreement with them, or unless they are your doctor or lawyer, you've waived your right to privacy, plain and simple. I find it funny that you wave the 4th amendment around, yet you can't provide any case law supporting your position, and a strict literal reading of the amendment itself does not support your position. Go ahead and try again though!