Google Cloud Platform encrypts customer content stored at rest, without any action from the customer, using one or more encryption mechanisms, with the following exceptions.
- Serial console logs from virtual machines in Google Compute Engine; this is currently being remediated
- Core dumps written to local drives, when a process fails unexpectedly; this is currently being remediated
- Debugging logs written to local disk; this is currently being remediated
- Temporary files used by storage systems; this is currently being remediated
- Some logs that may include customer content as well as customer metadata; this is planned for remediation
This data is still protected extensively by the rest of Google’s security infrastructure, and in almost all cases still protected by storage-level encryption.
I was just talking with my wife about this tonight. We were discussing the 20$ styling fee that is charged each month, regardless if you keep any of the pieces selected. The idea portrayed to their customers is that is a 'styling fee' for the human that hand picked the box of clothes specifically for her. "If I was setting up this business today", I speculated, "I'd just use ML and algorithms to do this."
Ironic that two hours later I'm reading this. Granted, it does say that humans are involved. However, they point out that the requests made by customers are analyzed for key words to identify which pieces would match. Earlier my wife argued "I can tell Stitch Fix that I'll be going to Vegas for a wedding and will need a dress. Would an algorithm hand select a dress for warm weather?"
"No" I replied, because an algorithm has no hand. Other than that, the answer is yes. No need to start a fight though :)
I have found that lots of aa members have a casual understanding of the traditions of aa. They attend meetings, and share about personal feelings but have little desire to learn and live by the traditions that were created out of hard lessons.
The particular tradition you refer to (appropriately) is about protecting AA from the ego's of its members and protecting members from arrogance which everyone know 'precedes a fall'.
Another misunderstanding of this tradition has to do with confusion with confidentiality. It was never intended for members to be secret from each other. This tradition is at the level of press, radio and films. Some people have tried to say that anonymity is at the level of members with each other, and that members should hide their full name from each other. In my opinion (which could be wrong) this is due to the influence of treatment centers in the 80's and 90's on the established program of AA.
Regardless, I find that careful anonymous sharing about the program of AA online is ok as long as you don't identify yourself as an AA member or use your full name and picture. Or if you do use your full name and picture, you shouldn't admit membership in AA.
I do not care to comment on my personal affiliation :)
> protecting members from arrogance which everyone know 'precedes a fall'
I feel like nothing can _really_ protect you from members' arrogance if they were determined enough. The rule, in my mind, only creates a certain exclusiveness shrouded in secrecy, which as far dealing with alcoholism seems pretty pointless. If it really works then why not spread the word?
Sheez. So when the broken code in question is over 2 years old, and is hard to fix, then Google just washed their hands of it? Google is a big company with substantial resources. How about they support their customers beyond the "new and shiny period" like many, many other companies do?
Google could invest the resources to create patches. What Google can't do is get those patches delivered to end-user devices. Given the fact that if Google provided patches they'd never reach users anyway, why should Google bother? And we know that OEMs won't provide updates because they are already refusing to provide the one that has existed for some time now: Android 4.4.
(Disclaimer: I'm a Google employee, and I work on Android security, but I'm not a spokesperson and these are only my own opinions.)
>What Google can't do is get those patches delivered to end-user devices.
Apple manage to do it. Google made a conscious decision to trade off allowing end users to keep up to date with achieving faster adoption of Android among OEMs and carriers. You can't now pretend that the results of those decisions are some kind of inevitability. It was Google's choice, and they are responsible for the result.
>And we know that OEMs won't provide updates because they are already refusing to provide the one that has existed for some time now: Android 4.4.
Apple makes all of its devices and therefore controls them. Google can't dictate to Samsung, HTC, LG, etc.
Google has updated the in-support Nexus devices. The Galaxy Nexus is something of a question mark, but the number of active Galaxy Nexus devices is tiny. It would make more sense for Google to offer GNex users a new device than to upgrade the few remaining GNex's to 4.4.
That's no so much a response as a wall-of-text that attempts to deflect any responsibility from Google at all. Given that they are so keen on pointing out the weaknesses of others in exactly this area they really need to make sure their own shit is together much better.
I find it interesting to apply the same logic to other sites. Imagine for a minute if Amazon needed to feature product prices from Newegg on each Amazon search. It starts to sound a little bit ridiculous when you apply it that way. I know some will say "wait, Google is so big" but isn't Amazon too? I use Amazon in my examples but there are other good examples. Phooey..
Note: I'm not taking any position on whether the EU regulators were correct or not. I'm not familiar with either EU antitrust law or with how Google shopping actually works.
You go to Amazon because you want to see what Amazon is selling. When Amazon in response to that shows you products they are selling, it is hard to see how that could raise antitrust issues, no matter how big Amazon is.
You go to Google's search page because you want to search the web. Google responds by showing you the hits on the web, AND by showing you things they think you might want to buy through their shopping service. They are using one line of business to give a boost to a different line of business. That's the kind of thing that does draw antitrust scrutiny.
An analogous situation with Amazon would be, perhaps, if when you searched for books on Apache or MySQL or other server software, they also showed you deals on AWS hosting.
An analogous situation with Amazon would be if they wrote and published their own books and started putting those at the top of all the search results.
For one, Amazon is not that dominant in the first place (Google has 80% of the world's searches, Amazon has nowhere near 80% of e-commerce -- estimated to get to around 20% in 2016).
Second, they can't really use their (non)dominance in Shopping to sell kindle fires. At most, they can promote them to their users. Most of which haven't bought one, and wont buy one, according to number of Amazon users vs estimated Kindle Fire sales numbers.
>It starts to sound a little bit ridiculous when you apply it that way.
That's because it wasn't meant to be applied that way. Not all ideas are meant to be carried out in their extreme. For example:
― "Your french fries will taste better with salt".
― "Well, I poored 20 pounds of salt on them, and they're not tasting nice anymore".
The difference between Google and Amazon, and the logic between the different treatmeant is simple. When you visit Amazon, you visit a STORE, and you go there specifically to shop from them. Whereas when you visit Google you visit a SEARCH ENGINE, and you go there to find results about sellers and products in general.
Terrible example. Amazon is a store - not a product search engine. If amazon suddenly started selling Amazon made products and putting them at the top of their listings then we'd have an accurate comparison. Google is abusing their power in one market (search) to push their products in other markets (Youtube videos, shopping results etc.).
I'm of the opinion that so long as they clearly mark that it's 'Google' shopping or flight results there is nothing wrong with the practise, it makes clear business sense and most companies would try the same. In terms of Google shopping, its a damn aggregation of other stores, presumably they get a small cut of sales via some affiliate program, but really they're in the position to do this more efficiently by directly handling people who use Google, rather than shuffling them to a 3rd party site, which would deteriorate the user experience.
No one complains when they manipulate search results to drop companies (e.g. rapgenius.com) in search results. So where must the line be drawn for 'unbiased' search results?
>> "it makes clear business sense and most companies would try the same"
True, that's why there are regulators. If you're the clear market leader in one thing using that power to promote your other products to people at the expense of competitors is wrong. It's similar to MS with IE. They were the leading OS manufacturer and they used that power to promote their own browser.
>> No one complains when they manipulate search results to drop companies (e.g. rapgenius.com) in search results. So where must the line be drawn for 'unbiased' search results?
This was a punishment BECAUSE RG manipulated rankings. Perfectly justified in my opinion.
yep, this is particularly important since for so many people "to google" is a verb meaning to search the web, and thus if something is not found on google, it doesn't exist on the web\
(well, that's just another way to say "dominant position")
This should have been the first release. Unfortunately the media and average citizens have a short attention span for continuing coverage of anything..
Who knows what may be released tomorrow? On the whole, the timing of these leaks has been excellent, and appears to be calculated to maximize their effect.
