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.
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?
Slight problem...
AOL CTOs have been using Google.
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?
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!