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

An anonymous reader writes: Three Republican senators have sent a letter to Google 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. The existence of this internal memo came to light on Monday in a Wall Street Journal article that forced Google to go public with details about a Google+ API bug that could have been used to harvest data on Google users.

According to the report, the internal memo, signed by Google's legal and policy staff, advised Google top execs not to disclose the existence of the API bug fearing "immediate regulatory interest." Google's legal staff also feared that the bug would bring Google "into the spotlight alongside or even instead of Facebook despite having stayed under the radar throughout the Cambridge Analytica scandal," and would "almost [guarantee] Sundar will testify before Congress," akin to Facebook's CEO. In a letter sent today to Google, three GOP senators want to see this internal memo for themselves by October 30, and also with on-the-record answers to seven questions in regards to what, why, and how Google handled the Google+ API data leak.

Re:

[cayenne8]

The existence of a memo suggesting you hide something to avoid regulatory oversight is a sure way to get some (deserved) regulatory oversight.

This was self-serving, and I'm glad to see it's backfiring on them.

While I agree with your sentiment....and I would like to see more privacy control of the information on US citizens, opt in, YOU own your own data and deserve to be able to say yes/no if it used, and can "be forgotten"....I do have to ask a question.

Since there really is NO current regulation on th

There was no leak

[JarekC]

The tricky part is there was no leak. The data was available, but there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. So technically they were not required to report the leak, because there was no leak.

Let's say they promised to keep your cash safe, then kept the safe unlocked for a couple of months, then realized what's up and locked it before anyone noticed. Are they legally obliged to tell you about it?

So even if they are assholes from moral point of view, legally they may be clean.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they really have enough logs to confirm there wasn't a leak?

Or are they saying that based on what logs they had available they could see no leak?

Re:

[fph il quozientatore]

How can you ever have enough logs to be 100% sure there wasn't a leak? Maybe they had enough root accesses to delete everything, no matter how many remote backup copies and how much un-tamperable line printer output you have.

Re:

[swillden]

Did they really have enough logs to confirm there wasn't a leak?

Or are they saying that based on what logs they had available they could see no leak?

The second one. The first is not possible in practice: How can you know your logging code is bug free? It is in a system with a security hole, so claiming it is flawless is hubris.

It was not a "system with a security hole" in the normal sense of the phrase. It was a system with an API that provided access to too much user data.

Re:There was no leak

[terjeber]

Did they really have enough logs to confirm there wasn't a leak?

They did a quick questionnaire in the hacking community. They asked plainly asked, "Have you hacked Google+", all the answers came "Google what?" So then they knew.

Re:

[Diakoneo]

Much like Watergate, it wasn't the crime that caused the fallout. It was the cover up.

Re:There was no leak

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Except in this case, the cover up isn't illegal, either, and hiding embarrassing things from the government is a rational strategy, what with its itchy regulatory trigger finger pushed by transient outrage fanned by politicians themselves.

The crime in Watergate was still pretty bad

[rsilvergun]

Breaking and entering to get dirt on your political rival. And no, "everybody did it" is not an excuse. Nixon had a pretty crazy disregard for the rule of law, going so far as to kick off the Drug War in order to crack down on the left wing because he knew they smoked pot. That's not a conspiracy theory, his own people came out later, admitted it and apologized for it.

I'd call this a hit piece except Google gets along just fine with the Republican majority. They supported the last few Supreme Court Nominees (albeit on the sly via various PACs) and were happy to take the tax cut.

What this is really is enemy creation. Racism is winding down as an effective vehicle for making bogymen. But any good ruling class needs a way to divide the working class. Instead of Black/White they're working on Technocrat/Blue Collar as the next point of division.

This is how the Japanese created their divides to keep the working class from organizing, BTW. They declared some professions as "bad" (unclean ones, like butcher and undertaker) and kept books of who was who based on family names. That's how you create classes without racial divides.

What annoys me is we see this pattern over and over again. The Japanese, India Caste systems, American Racial Slavery, hell the Canadians have been caught doing it with Eskimos (South Park made fun of it). You'd think the working class would catch on to the trick and stop being fooled but so far, no dice...

Tell Vlad to give you a bonus

[rsilvergun]

that was some grade A trolling there. If you could have resisted the temptation and skipped the insult at the end you mighta got modded up.

It was a thing right up until the 90s

[rsilvergun]

see here [wikipedia.org]. And I doubt it went away in the 90s, but like how the US passed laws to stop racial profiling in loan applications the Japanese gov't appears to have cracked down on this particular form of discrimination.

Re:

[Ogive17]

Covering up what? That there was a vulnerability but no evidence anyone exploited it?

Do you go to the police station and report every time you drove faster than the speed limit or didn't come to a complete stop at a stop sign?

I think Congress has more important things to worry about IF there are no victims.

Re:

[ljw1004]

The tricky part is there was no leak. The data was available, but there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. So technically they were not required to report the leak, because there was no leak.

I agree that there is no evidence of any unauthorized access. But your conclusion "there was no leak" doesn't follow.

If there had been a leak, would there have been evidence of a leak? -- no, because they're not gathering the data that would provide evidence. Therefore, the observation "no evidence of a leak" has no ability to justify the statement "there was no leak".

I guess it depends on what the legislation is, what it defines as a leak, and where it puts the burden of knowledge. I haven't read it to fin

Memos?

[dfn5]

People still send memos? I don't think I've sent a memo since 1995.

Re:

[bugs2squash]

And did the google legal team really put their name to something discoverable ? I thought they hated to leave traces like this...

lol

[Hugh Jorgen]

Did they stomp their foot and stick out their bottom lip while making this "demand?" Google has gotten away with shit for years, any posturing by the government is just that, posturing.

Support the Narrative

[Puls4r]

This is all optics in the government's current pursuit of the pockets of the big IT corporations.

Approximately 430 people had access to the API. Google knows who those people are.

This API was for Google+. Despite reporting that glosses over the fact. Google+ is an unused wasteland where social media accounts go to die.

There is no proof, in fact not even a suggestion, that this bug was known in the wild. They've not found it on the usual suspect web pages where information like this is sold.

There is no log or data (according to Google) that it was ever exploited.

This news-event is entirely artificial and is being used to build a case. The motivation here is not to fix a problem, it's to create a bigger problem/outcry/outrage so that something else happens. It's unfortunate that the Slashdot contributors can't recognize a tempest in a teapot.

What could go wrong?

[PopeRatzo]

I don't know about you guys, but I totally trust the Senate to investigate google in an ethical and unbiased way and not try to use this to gain political advantage or punish perceived enemies.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Should have used external counsel

[SmilingBoy]

Had an external law firm written the memo, it would have been privileged and Google could not even have been obliged by a court to provide it.

Re:

[ItsJustAPseudonym]

IANAL. That being said, I think internal lawyers would just have to have marked the memo as "Attorney-Client Privileged" to cause it to be so.

Is this even legal?

[MakerDusk]

As a Canadian, I may be wrong, but since corporations are considered to be people under the law and Americans have the right to refrain from providing self incriminating evidence (5th amendment).... Isn't a group of senators signing a letter demanding that Google provide a self-incriminating memo (which may or may not exist) against the law?

Wouldn't that be akin to demanding that someone hand over a signed confession or face the consequences? Since it was specified what the memo should contain and who shou

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Using your logic, the 97 senators (47 Democrats and 48 Republicans) who didn't send this letter to Google are okay with Google fucking everyone. That means the Republicans are ever so slightly more guilty than the Democrats.

Re:So Dems don't care I guess

[Oswald McWeany]

Google's on their team, so who cares if they fuck everyone?

As a centrist can some someone please explain something to me? Not intending this as a wind-up- just something that amuses me and I'm curious to know the answer.

If IT is biased against republicans,
and news media is biased against republicans,
and Hollywood is biased against republicans,
and women are all biased against republicans,
if sports is biased against republicans,
if social media is biased against republicans,
immigrants are biased against republicans,
and recently I'm told industry is biased against republicans...

If the republicans are perpetual victims of such bias from everyone- how do they have the current president and hold both houses? How can you be the "victim party" that faces everyone's bias and be the party in power?

Re:

[Archangel Michael]

If the republicans are perpetual victims of such bias from everyone- how do they have the current president and hold both houses?

In spite of it?

It shows how weak the "Racist, Sexist, Bigot, Homophobic ..." chanting actually is.

It shows how lame the Democrats are. Pelosi is their leader? REALLY?

It shows enough people don't believe the crap they are all are spewing.

Could you imagine what the democrat party would be like without their mouthpieces, stand ins, surrogates and lap dogs spewing daily propaganda?

Re:

[stinerman]

LOL

Re:

[pgmrdlm]

f IT is biased against republicans,
I think the bias you are talking about occurs in coastal states, which are predominantly liberal.

and news media is biased against republicans,
Not all media is biased, there are some main media that offer both sides. Maybe not always, but the effort is there. Also, if a person is smart. They reference multiple sites when getting their information. Both opposed and for any given subject.

and Hollywood is biased against republicans,Again, not all Hollywood. Look up re

Re:

[alvinrod]

Not all media is biased, there are some main media that offer both sides.

No, all media is biased. It's just that not all media is biased in the same way. Some media may be less biased than others, but none are perfectly objective. If you think that as long as "both sides" of the issue are presented it must mean the media is unbiased, you've fallen into one hell of a trap. There's an entire world of possibility outside of "both sides" of issue. You can sample "both sides" of the same turd, but you're eating shit either way.

Re:So Dems don't care I guess

[David_Hart]

Not all media is biased, there are some main media that offer both sides.

No, all media is biased. It's just that not all media is biased in the same way. Some media may be less biased than others, but none are perfectly objective. If you think that as long as "both sides" of the issue are presented it must mean the media is unbiased, you've fallen into one hell of a trap. There's an entire world of possibility outside of "both sides" of issue. You can sample "both sides" of the same turd, but you're eating shit either way.

The biggest problem with attempting to be even-handed is that you full into the trap of lending credence to arguments that are not worth listening to simply because they are built on a house of falsehoods. And yet ignoring falsehoods creates a trap where one side believes that the only reason why those arguments aren't being aired is due to biased media.

Re:

[SirAstral]

"The biggest problem with attempting to be even-handed is that you full into the trap of lending credence to arguments that are not worth listening to simply because they are built on a house of falsehoods. And yet ignoring falsehoods creates a trap where one side believes that the only reason why those arguments aren't being aired is due to biased media."

You got it pretty much wrong and here is why.

It is a fallacy to assume that being even-handed is the same as "lending credence" or "falling into a trap" a

Re:

[alvinrod]

I believe that a failure to point out falsehoods and show them for what they are lends far more credence to them than they might gain from the additional attention. If attempts to point out the folly in something are only helping it, that would seem to suggest the arguments aren't as good as the people making them would like to think they are, or that the people making those arguments are incapable of conveying their message effectively.

If something rests on a whole mountain of falsehoods, it's even easi

Re:

[dgatwood]

This. The problem with the media is that they have no teeth, mainly because they don't pay well enough to hire the best and brightest, so most people who would be really good at journalism don't go into that field, and a lot of people who aren't very good do.

It used to be the case that when a politician told something that was factually a lie, the journalists knew that it was a lie, and called them on it. These days, they just let them spew lies, in the name of "balance". That's not journalism at that po

Re:

[SirAstral]

You can't have unbiased media, the idea is a sign of ignorance. In fact the pursuit of it creates an even more false narrative.

Let's analyze your bias. You think the media is right... this means you are likely "extreme left" because to a person at the fringe sees even light handed leftist as being right.

I see see the media as majority Left for most of world TV, I view Fox and very few others as being Right, and most of Radio in the US seems Right to me as well. This means I am likely more right than left

Re:

[dgatwood]

Let's analyze your bias. You think the media is right... this means you are likely "extreme left" because to a person at the fringe sees even light handed leftist as being right.

You're off by a mile. I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative. But by conservative, I mean actual conservative, not the spend-lavishly-and-raise-the-deficit faux conservatism that most Republicans espouse these days.

I see see the media as majority Left for most of world TV, I view Fox and very few others as being Right, and mo

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

Not all media is biased, there are some main media that offer both sides.

Whenever I hear this assertion, I always want to know, which do you believe are the unbiased media? Give us names, please. Tell us so we too can partake of the Solomonic wisdom of these unbaised sources.

My guess is that your list of unbiased media would simply reflect your own bias.

Re:

[Pascoea]

Weird how that works, right? That being said, I've personally found that while NPR (and my local, MPR) are generally left leaning, they aren't as "in your face" with their bias as the MSNBCs and Fox News of the world. But I tend to lean slightly left of center, so that's likely why that source appeals to me.

Re:

[pgmrdlm]

Ap News, Reuters, Washington Post(they offer truth, but hate Trump), CNN, cbsnews, abcnews, usatoday, la times.

I am conservative, and find I find something of reference in all those sites. I hate California, but I do respect LA Times. Even when I disagree with them. They were just purchased, and the California Liberals hate the.

The only completly unbiased source I can think of is CSR reports prepared for congress. These can be found on FAS.org. No paywall.

Re:

[PopeRatzo]

Ap News, Reuters, Washington Post(they offer truth, but hate Trump), CNN, cbsnews, abcnews, usatoday, la times.

I am conservative, and find I find something of reference in all those sites

Would it surprise you to learn that all of the outlets you mention, including the WashPo and CNN, present mainly a center-right point of view? When there is a war to be had, they will all support the war, even if it's plainly foreign interventionism and "nation-building". They all support the surveillance state and will g

Re:

[Oswald McWeany]

On the one hand, whoever is in power is automatically hated by whoever is not in power.

On the other hand, there are just as many people biased against democrats as there are people biased against republicans.

On the third hand, people who identify with a group will naturally exaggerate the level of bias that is present against that group.

I do think those are all 3 very accurate points. It's easier to make fun of and dislike the guy in power. You can't blame your problems on someone who isn't in power.

Re:

[kenai_alpenglow]

I believe you meant "the gripping hand"...

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google's on their team, so who cares if they fuck everyone?

As a centrist can some someone please explain something to me? Not intending this as a wind-up- just something that amuses me and I'm curious to know the answer.

If IT is biased against republicans,
and news media is biased against republicans,
and Hollywood is biased against republicans,
and women are all biased against republicans,
if sports is biased against republicans,
if social media is biased against republicans,
immigrants are biased against republicans,
and recently I'm told industry is biased against republicans...

If the republicans are perpetual victims of such bias from everyone- how do they have the current president and hold both houses? How can you be the "victim party" that faces everyone's bias and be the party in power?

Well, Democrats do stupid shit like running a corrupt, unlikable harpy wife of an ex-President for President simply because "it's her turn".

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're full of shite, that's how.
Honestly, as (what I consider to be) a moderate/centrist who has left leanings socially and slightly right leanings fiscally, I think Google needs to tell them to go get bent. I think FB should have too.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think these companies should have lax security, and I certainly don't think that they should play cavalier with people's data.
That being said, they aren't regulated. There's no law saying a social media company has to protect your data l

Re:So Dems don't care I guess

[edi_guy]

You can likely extend this as a trait for American's in general. As a nation we have far and away the most economic power, most military power, massive and varied natural resources, and a forgiving climate. Our immediate border neighbors are small, friendly, non-threatening, and there's only two of them. Our enemies are all geographically very, very far away, across huge oceans. And yet, as a society we feel like the rest of the world is out to get us. Or is cheating us our of our fair share in some way, even though demonstrably we have way more than our 'fair share'.

Not even a Democrat/Republican thing as I see this behavior in myself as well, and it'd be interesting to know what the underlying cause is.

Re:

[bluefoxlucid]

You hear it again and again, so you integrate with it. It's fear, uncertainty, insecurity.

You have to figure out what you believe the world should be, not what in the world is scary and wrong. You can't be against things; you have to be for things.

If you're against something, it's because it's threatening. If your only answer is that it should stop, or that you should fight it, then you're going to be running around frightened and angry all the time, seeing demons in the shadows.

Re:So Dems don't care I guess

[Pascoea]

and it'd be interesting to know what the underlying cause is.

I'm going to guess it has something to do with us being insulated from how truly shitty of a life some people in this world have. The threshold for having a "shitty day" for most people in the US is generally somewhere between "stuck in traffic" and "lost my job", not "I haven't eaten this week".

Re:

[strikethree]

The threshold for having a "shitty day" for most people in the US is generally somewhere between "stuck in traffic" and "lost my job", not "I haven't eaten this week".

Your argument was almost valid, and then you said "lost my job" vs "I haven't eaten this week".

Yeah, for some people "lost my job" means "end of my life". Can't feed the kids, can't keep a roof over the head, wife leaves you (welfare is FAR more useful if there is no male around).

Your point would have been completely valid had you not used "lost my job" as an example of merely a shitty day in the US. There is a reason why middle aged males have the highest successful suicide rate.

innate biases of the wage-slave aristocray

[epine]

The elite, wage-slave aristocracy everywhere leans Democrat. It's that simple.

Spend $200,000 on your tuition at an elite university, you're pretty much guaranteed (trust us) a highly compensated job in a city with a very high cost of living (such as New York, where you make nowhere near enough to command a spacious appartment—one not situated at the distal terminus of the Origami subway line—but plenty enough to pay the hand-to-mouth legions of the service industry to cook your food for you; and

Re:

[SirAstral]

Centrist here as well, though very slightly right and south of center.

Just because bias is present and on open display does not mean it will be successful. Additionally since America is not a Democracy despite mass confusion is it impossible for the Majority to always get their candidates into power. Which is why Hillary lost and Trump won.

And if you word it like "Victim Party" I would be tempted to call into question your actual "centrist" claims.

The words "Victim Party" is a claim often lobed at Democra

Re:

[Mashiki]

If the republicans are perpetual victims of such bias from everyone- how do they have the current president and hold both houses?

Republicans don't see themselves as perpetual victims, but they acknowledge that there are particular organizations that are biased against them and between the two? You bet. There's *a lot* of money at stake, and the democrats/progressives and in general most of the left are pro-globalization/demolishing western culture/etc and this directly aligns with progressive agenda 'we can change the world because reasons.' Note that here in the west the left have had a monopoly on media and education for the bette

Re:

[Mashiki]

You're a jap chank in a land of Whites who hates diversity and to top it off, you're a goddamned Canuk. Your opinions for America don't matter. Does the nagger get a say at the klan meetings now?

Get THE FUCK outta here.

Either shitty troll, or typical progressive. Not sure which since the messaging is the same.

p.s. any reasonable person dislikes diversity, it's only the people who have self-guilt or self-loathing that openly support it.

Re:

[mesterha]

I use "the left" in a broad term in this case, but you can round it out from environmentalism shifting to hyper-environmentalism that humans need to die.

While I think there is some truth to what you say, I do think the right often resorts to a false equivalence. It might be easy to find some hyper-environmentalists and trot them out, but it doesn't mean they own the mind share of the left. It's also easy to find a group of crazy teachers and students at various universities, but again, this is only a s

Re:

[Mashiki]

It might be easy to find some hyper-environmentalists and trot them out, but it doesn't mean they own the mind share of the left.

Well that's the thing, if I walk through downtown Toronto or San Fran. And pump out "gmo's are poison" or "we need to eliminate half the population to stop climate change" you'll see far more people on the left nodding their head, agreeing or other crap. You've got plenty of people even here on /. that believe that censorship is a good thing, though that's heavily changed over the last 4 years or so. Now it's only the most die hard individuals who support censorship being promoted by the left.

Yeah and the

Re:

[Mashiki]

You repubtards are so deep in denial it isn't even funny anymore.

All you do is point fingers and blame people for your own fucking mistakes. I hope the repubtard party dies soon. You guys aren't even remotely able to work with others. You are all selfish pricks who put R before anything else.

So fuck all of the die hard repubtards who out R before anything else. You guys are idiots.

Yes, sure thing. The political capital of the democrats is going so well these days. So very well, wonder how unhinged you'll become if they continue to lose in the house and senate in a few weeks. Though the irony of using repubtards...the party of tolerance and caring on display.

Re:

[Mashiki]

Because the 'best person' for the job is the person Exactly like me. That mindset leaves discrimination and elitism in place. Yes, forcing people to choose the disadvantaged was a problem, but a small one because no business depends on employees having a WASP-lifestyle.

Really? So why was it that so many tech oriented startups that believed in meritocracy no longer exist. But instead of hiring the best person, they're hiring the 300 lbs, blue haired, snowflake that screeches about microagressions and has never coded a day in their life.

Re:

[iMadeGhostzilla]

and women are all biased against republicans

(emphasis mine)

This tells me you're not a centrist, or if you were, it's irrelevant, you hate Trump. People either hate Trump or they don't, in which case they love him or are OK with him. That applies to everything associated with Trump: if you hate Trump you hate today's Republicans, you hate Fox, you hate Kavanaugh and so on.

When people hate Trump their emotions interfere with their mental processes in a way that makes them unaware of it, like the stuff you wrote about "all" women (other things in there