GStalk

September 15, 2010 8:13 AM

A Google engineer was recently fired for spying on several teens through their GTalk, Gmail, and Google Voice accounts.

He accessed contact lists and chat transcripts, and in one case quoted from an IM that he'd looked up behind the person's back... In another incident, Barksdale unblocked himself from a Gtalk buddy list even though the teen in question had taken steps to cut communications with the Google engineer.

Google statement confirming the shenanigans.
posted by swift (96 comments total)

Google Me, Google You. Google Bye!
posted by chavenet at 8:16 AM on September 15, 2010

Eh, not that noteworthy, really. People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their access. The fact that it happened inside Google shouldn't really be that scandalous. They did fire him, after all.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:17 AM on September 15, 2010 [13 favorites]

Christ, what an asshole.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:19 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Creepy.
posted by blucevalo at 8:20 AM on September 15, 2010

This does seem like a single bad actor, though.

However, if I had a company that I thought might be acquired by Google or had a client/vendor relationship, I sure as shit wouldn't use any of their hosted applications or email.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 8:22 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Eh, not that noteworthy, really. People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their access. The fact that it happened inside Google shouldn't really be that scandalous. They did fire him, after all.

That's true, and so for me this is the most important part of Google's statement: "we are significantly increasing the amount of time we spend auditing our logs to ensure those [security] controls are effective." So it sounds like Google is taking steps to reduce the likelihood that something like this will happen again.
posted by jedicus at 8:24 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

A Google engineer spied on four underage teens for months before the company was notified of the abuses.

This is an annoying way of putting it. Teens are by definition "underage," unless they're no longer minors, by which point they're not considered teens anymore.
posted by blucevalo at 8:24 AM on September 15, 2010

Most people aged 18 and 19 are often times still called "teens", but they're not "underage" in the US in most normal senses (besides alcohol and renting cars).
posted by skynxnex at 8:26 AM on September 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

I consider 19-year-olds to be teens that are not underage.
posted by 23skidoo at 8:26 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Actually, now that I think about it...I wonder how long before we have laws that mandate external privacy auditing of companies that collect large amounts of personal information. We mandate financial audits of publicly listed companies, so the precedent is there.
posted by jedicus at 8:27 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

It's noteworthy because Google's CEO refuses to acknowledge that this isn't OK. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." — Eric Schmidt, 2009.
posted by enn at 8:28 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

blucevalo: A Google engineer spied on four underage teens for months before the company was notified of the abuses.

This is an annoying way of putting it. Teens are by definition "underage," unless they're no longer minors, by which point they're not considered teens anymore.

Eighteen and nineteen are both majority age years ending in -teen.
posted by paisley henosis at 8:29 AM on September 15, 2010

After accessing the kid's account to retrieve her name and phone number, Barksdale then taunted the boy and threatened to call her.

"You must have heard some pretty wild things if you think me getting fired is newsworthy," he responded by email."

Yes. I heard that you, a man nearing your thirties, was taunting a teenager using his private communications.

But more importantly, I heard that you did the thing that no one ever wants to think about; you reached into the database and found people, not just data. You made it personal, and those of us who rely on Google for a lot of our private services never wanted to think, to really consider, that someone would ever do that.

And now the millions of people who use things like Gmail and Talk and Voice have to consider that any message we share with our spouse or child or friend, might be read by some freaky weirdo who enjoys messing with helpless children in his free time.

Now do you understand why it might be newsworthy?
posted by quin at 8:30 AM on September 15, 2010 [23 favorites]

And Google should have turned over the results of its investigation to law enforcement; it's not for them to decide that this isn't a crime.
posted by enn at 8:30 AM on September 15, 2010 [13 favorites]

Don't Be Creepy.
posted by nomadicink at 8:31 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

Google is a large organization, things like this are simply going to happen. What's important is that they are being open and honest about it. They didn't simply move him to another department to quietly kill his career, deny that it every took place or the other myriad of abuses that other organizations, namely the Catholic Church, engaged in.

Community outreach is important and giving kids access to an experienced engineer at a big name company is nothing but a Good Thing. I know of at least one large company that used to do similar outreach but stopped due to fears about this. I don't think that's the correct response at all, and I hope Google will still allow their employees to engage in similar programs.

We mandate financial audits of publicly listed companies, so the precedent is there.

You had financial audits when Enron was around. They tightened it with Sarbanes Oxley and it didn't do shit.

Where does this guy rank in the hierarchy? Is this a coveted position or more of a back office role?
posted by geoff. at 8:31 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

I never have heard people over the age of majority called "teens," regardless of whether the literal age ends in "-teen." It could be that I'm missing a more frequent usage, but it's still a clumsy way of phrasing it. The "underage teens" should be called minors, which is what the post does in succeeding paragraphs.
posted by blucevalo at 8:33 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

You had financial audits when Enron was around. They tightened it with Sarbanes Oxley and it didn't do shit.

I wasn't necessarily arguing that such audits would be effective, just that I can see them being mandated in the wake of this kind of thing, much as SOX was largely a byproduct of Enron/Tyco/WorldCom/etc.
posted by jedicus at 8:33 AM on September 15, 2010

To keep a system like this running, a few people (hopefully as few as possible) are always going to need access to personal data, with the knowledge that their life could be ruined if they abuse their power. But there will always be incidents like this. It's the price you pay for convenience.

I'm just glad they were able to crack the Barksdale operation.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:37 AM on September 15, 2010 [13 favorites]

The real question is why an engineer would have unrestricted access to production data. I have more than I should in a lot of ways, but my company isn't Google and I can't modify financial data or view private communications. This guy was apparently viewing and modifying things on the actual, widely-used system. Shouldn't that be locked down to support personnel?
posted by mikeh at 8:37 AM on September 15, 2010

Eh, not that noteworthy, really. People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their access. The fact that it happened inside Google shouldn't really be that scandalous. They did fire him, after all.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:17 AM on September 15

Actually it is noteworthy.

Specifically, spying on a Google Voice call constitutes wiretapping, and it's illegal. It's not a breach of security policy or some end-user agreement, but a go-directly-to-prison violation of 119 U.S.C. § 2511.

Google isn't the NSA. They don't get to monitor us "for our benefit." Barksdale should go to prison, and the user should sue Google to the maximum extent possible. Because fuck "do no evil," the only thing this corporation understands is money.
posted by Pastabagel at 8:40 AM on September 15, 2010 [31 favorites]

And now the millions of people who use things like Gmail and Talk and Voice have to consider that any message we share with our spouse or child or friend, might be read by some freaky weirdo who enjoys messing with helpless children in his free time.

I don't know about Google Voice, but email itself, structurally, is not private. Any email can be intercepted by freaky weirdos who enjoy messing with helpless children in their free time. Maybe someday general public realizes that email is about as private as ham radio and switch to private email servers sending encrypted messages. But I don't think that's very likely.
posted by muddgirl at 8:41 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Clearly this should have been reported to the authorities. Hopefully they will investigate now.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 8:43 AM on September 15, 2010

...abuses that other organizations, namely the Catholic Church, engaged in.

It's funny that it feels natural to compare Google and the Catholic Church this way.

I mean, I agree that it does feel natural. And not because both are eeeeeeeeeeeeevil conspiracies — I mean, I think the analogy would go through even if they both had better reputations. It's just that Google puts itself in a sort of priest-like role. They're the friendly face of a deep and forbiddingly universal form of (communications technology that most people find indistinguishable from) magic. And creepy or not, that's sort of funny.

Back in the 60s and 70s there was a lot of countercultural writing where Ma Bell was this object of quasi-religious veneration. (Didn't Robert Anton Wilson use that schtick in one of his books? And it keeps cropping up in the Beat poets....) I think I get the joke better now.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:51 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

Eh, not that noteworthy, really. People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their access. The fact that it happened inside Google shouldn't really be that scandalous. They did fire him, after all.

I very strongly disagree that this isn’t noteworthy; this is a really horrific thing and it needs to be clear that it is unacceptable. It appears that Google is endeavoring to address the matter, which is really good and important and that should be noted too, but if it happens again we shouldn’t brush it off. People can only take action against bad things if they are aware of them, so instead of writing it off as “business as usual” it means we should be all the more vigilant. If spying/harassment is considered normal, that’s all the more reason to be aware of every case so something can be done about it.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 8:54 AM on September 15, 2010

I don't know about Google Voice, but email itself, structurally, is not private.

Very true. But the average email interceptor doesn't generally also have the ability to cross reference any information he receives with chat and voice data. Not to mention whatever other private info he had access to the the vast Google database.

One data-stream is bad enough, but being able to grep together info from multiple sources is when it starts getting really spooky.
posted by quin at 8:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

"we are significantly increasing the amount of time we spend auditing our logs to ensure those [security] controls are effective."

I know this is from a press release, but this is pure weasel right here. Completely meaningless. They could be taking a good approach, they might not. If they double the amount of time they spend, that could be 'significant', or it could be going from one hour a month to two. There are loads of state privacy requirements that Google may or may not be breaking (MA's 201 CMR 17:00 is a good sample, they mostly cover financial account numbers). Maybe. But how would that play out? MA AG brings suit, Google agrees to a settlement of $50-500 million with the state(s) and to have a big four firm review their privacy controls on a certain subset of their data for a couple years. That outcome would be totally meaningless in application to individuals personal data stored at Google.

I use Google mail, voice, and reader all the damn time, and for the most part don't care, because I'm not doing anything that would be seriously beneficial to them to snoop on. There's always the risk of disclosure because of a mistake on their end, but that's the case anywhere. I don't trust them less than I trust AT&T and Verizon.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 8:57 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

The gawker-esque framing of the story and the creepiness of this employee's behavior aside*, I am curious what the point (subtext) of this story is? When you lead with "We entrust Google with our most private communications because we assume the company takes every precaution to safeguard our data." and label him as a "GCreep" (tying him to the Google brand; and tying the Google brand to him, à la GMail or iPrefixing) I feel like the point is to make some bigger statement about Google and its evil-empire-ness. But when it comes down to it, every company is run by people. Unfortunately, some people shouldn't be trusted. Those people are often crafty and find themselves in powerful positions they really have no business being in.

Google took the right action immediately upon finding out about the illegal behavior. This really is a story about an employee abusing their workplace, and in a creepy way that effected some of the customer base. This happens at companies all the time (but is by no means acceptable or excusable). But the article is framed as though - because it happened at Google - there's this bigger privacy danger that the public should know about, having to do with the security of Google itself and the products that customers use from it. They don't go outright and say it, but it's there and it is kind of skewed and disingenous, I think.

To be clear, I agree with others that Google should take it further, Barksdale should go to prison, and this should be investigated by the authorities. (Not necessarily in that order, heh.)

*Is anybody else a bit baffled by the three photos of Barksdale in silly or affected poses?
posted by iamkimiam at 8:57 AM on September 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

What he overheard: "OMG...like...wtf is wave?! Like, should I be using it and stuff? I don't know what it does, but it's totally awesome because it's google!"
posted by Fizz at 9:00 AM on September 15, 2010

> People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their access. The fact that it happened inside Google shouldn't really be that scandalous. They did fire him, after all

People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their privileges with company resources within that company. The users at those companies don't have a choice about quality of service, and they're typically explicitly instructed against using company accounts for personal use. That's okay; if they need to email a buddy, they should probably set up a gmail account and use that during their lunch breaks or something.

The engineer at Google had access to any people using Google for their email and chat services. Google doesn't set policies about whether people can use those services for personal purposes, because that's explicitly what Google's services are for. Since the scale is so much larger than any other corporate IT's, there is far more interesting and sensitive information being stored from a more diverse range of people, and Google implicitly needs to handle that information with a greater degree of security and discretion.

Good on Google for being forthright about the abuse and quick response to it, but I hope it comes with some real internal policy changes regarding access to user data.
posted by ardgedee at 9:02 AM on September 15, 2010

This happened on livejournal, except the guy still works for them and the LJ staff are helping to cover it up and trolling people talking about it.

I haven't the exact link because I'm currently on a cellphone, but the write up is over in the unfunnybusiness community on journalfen.net .
posted by FunkyHelix at 9:04 AM on September 15, 2010

Everyone who is commending Google for being open realizes that Google silently fired this guy with no public acknowledgement at all until after this story — based on an anonymous leak — had already been published, right? That doesn't seem very open to me at all.
posted by enn at 9:05 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

And, good on Google for firing this guy. Once, at a previous employer, a room full of IT staff were watching one of the Microsoft and Exchange admins use his laptop. He was demonstrating switching mailboxes, and Outlook helpfully auto-filled the name of previous mailboxes. Listed was the CEO and this guy's own manager, in other words, he had recently accessed their mailboxes. As far as I know, 6 or 7 years later he still works there.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:05 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

> Good on Google for being forthright about the abuse and quick response to it, but I hope it comes with some real internal policy changes regarding access to user data.

For the foreseeable future, email systems will require humans with full access to properly administer. About the only thing that could completely contain abuse within a system as large as Google's would be to have multiple admins all with keyloggers (and maybe even actual cameras on their workspaces, with no remote access allowed) and independent auditors.

Keep in mind that this guy wasn't just picking accounts at random. He was breaking into the accounts of people that he already had some kind of social interest in. That doesn't make it better, but it contextualizes the abuse more than just "OMG Google is looking at your stuff!". The subset of people affected by this would be limited to those who know Google admins, mostly.

Anyway, this is one more thing pushing me toward getting a static IP address and hosting my own mail. That's going on the home projects list.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:10 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

found the link
posted by FunkyHelix at 9:11 AM on September 15, 2010

It's not noteworthy because shit like this happens all the time.

If you're an Engineer or a programmer; or you work for a Doctor or a Hospital; or you're Police or you work for the Police; If you're a teacher or a caretaker, then more than likely you're going to be able to get hold of more information than you should. If you wanted to abuse that information, you probably could. And it doesn't really matter what controls management have put into place, because how little these people know about IT security is beyond frightening.

Here's the thing. Google will crack down on this, and dollars to donuts, the new level of security is going to be better and more secure than you or the company you work for is *ever* going to provide. If you do it yourself, you'll have the impression of safety and control, but unless you're an IT freak, you won't have anywhere near as much safety or control.

If you want a metaphor, then think about how much safer it is to be on a plane/train/bus than it is to be in a car you're driving. And then think about which one you feel safer in.

Of course, there is the odd occasion when something goes wrong. And the companies affected need to review security procedures. But an "oh the humanity and won't someone think of the children" level of hysteria isn't going to do anything except (ultimately) drive your information services into the hands of your government (or Diebold) at a great, great price to your pocket.
posted by seanyboy at 9:13 AM on September 15, 2010 [5 favorites]

So, how plausible is it that G. is directly snooping on everyone's web searches as well?
posted by 7-7 at 9:13 AM on September 15, 2010

I feel like the point is to make some bigger statement about Google and its evil-empire-ness.
I agree completely with this sentiment.
posted by seanyboy at 9:15 AM on September 15, 2010

As someone who's run my own mail server in the past, I actually don't trust myself to do a better job at it than Google.
posted by These Premises Are Alarmed at 9:15 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

"Now do you understand why it might be newsworthy?"

Nope, not yet.

Idiot nerd does idiot stuff. Working at Google didn't cause this, his idiotness did. Google didn't do it, the idiot nerd did.

Google is addressing a flaw in the system, what more should they do?

I venture that, other than the most secret government systems, all e/mail providers, hosting services, and ISP's have the same risk factor so the safe route isn't really don't use Google, the safe route is don't communicate in any manner.

I also suspect that your data is safer with Google than it is with the local ISP (worked for one of those once, in the early days, security was crappy, all I did was Mac tech support but could access pretty much anyone's e/mails).
posted by HuronBob at 9:15 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Barksdale should be placed on the sex offenders' register for life.
posted by acb at 9:23 AM on September 15, 2010

blucevalo: "I never have heard people over the age of majority called "teens," regardless of whether the literal age ends in "-teen." It could be that I'm missing a more frequent usage, but it's still a clumsy way of phrasing it. The "underage teens" should be called minors, which is what the post does in succeeding paragraphs."

You are not looking at enough pr0n. 18 $ 19 year olds are "teens" yet legal.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:23 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

ardgedee: "People in IT shops regularly get busted for abusing their privileges with company resources within that company."

Fun story from my parent. Just yesterday they had an all hands meeting to discuss password security, and to remind everyone not to share passwords etc. So I asked, "What about the giant spreadsheet of passwords management wanted?"

"Well, they gave everyone a password file on Sharepoint and restricted it to just you, so management can't access it now. Just IT." I laughed.

In otherwords, management was busted for this practice, and whatever management lording above them felt it nessecary to hold a meeting. But the actual problem is now limited to their undereducated, underpaid IT staff. Who answers to management. I suggested she change the file, and see how long until it someone complained that it didn't work.
posted by pwnguin at 9:24 AM on September 15, 2010

But the average email interceptor doesn't generally also have the ability to cross reference any information he receives with chat and voice data.

He's a self-described "hacker", so I don't doubt his ability to gain this information from outside Google if he wanted to. It's unclear exactly how much of this stuff he had authorized access to and how much was unauthorized. I am most troubled by the fact that Google fired this guy and that criminal charges apparently haven't been pursued, which means it's likely that Google made a grave error in giving this guy access to systems he did not have the maturity to handle.
posted by muddgirl at 9:25 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Barksdale should be placed on the sex offenders' register for life.

No hamburger? Really? I don't see any sex offense here.
posted by muddgirl at 9:28 AM on September 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

enn: "It's noteworthy because Google's CEO refuses to acknowledge that this isn't OK. "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." — Eric Schmidt, 2009."

Since this quote is almost always taken out of context, here it is:

Q: People are treating Google like their most trusted friend. Should they be?

A: I think judgement matters… If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place. But if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it’s important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities.”

It's not the most elegant way of saying it, but Schmidt is warning that the government might violate your privacy, not Google. Google instead gives its users a Dashboard which shows all the information it retains, and step by step directions to opt out of Analytics, run encrypted web searches, export your information out of any of their web searches and opt out of targeted web advertising. If doing all those things AND regularly clearing out GMail AND running chromium instead of Google Chrome aren't enough, then by all means use other web services. I just don't think it's reasonable to claim Google isn't making sufficient effort.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 9:35 AM on September 15, 2010 [18 favorites]

I don't think the full context changes the meaning of the quote at all. The warning about the Patriot Act is clearly an example, not a statement that that is the only sort of privacy violation you have to worry about.
posted by enn at 9:42 AM on September 15, 2010

Eighteen and nineteen are both majority age years ending in -teen.

So are sixteen and seventeen in some places. I didn't see anything in the article saying which jurisdiction the teens were in.

You are not looking at enough pr0n. 18 $ 19 year olds are "teens" yet legal.

Yeah, but if we're going by porn standards, 25 year olds are teens.
posted by Slyfen at 9:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [8 favorites]

enn: "And Google should have turned over the results of its investigation to law enforcement; it's not for them to decide that this isn't a crime."

And I, a time traveler from the future, bring you this news from 2025: Google announces a merger with the Catholic church. The Holy See is now the Holy Gee...
posted by symbioid at 9:56 AM on September 15, 2010

Slyfen: "Eighteen and nineteen are both majority age years ending in -teen.

So are sixteen and seventeen in some places. I didn't see anything in the article saying which jurisdiction the teens were in.

You are not looking at enough pr0n. 18 $ 19 year olds are "teens" yet legal.

Yeah, but if we're going by porn standards, 25 year olds are teens."

And 40 year olds are Grannies.
posted by symbioid at 9:57 AM on September 15, 2010

One reason this story might matter is it could make you consider whether an online monoculture makes you vulnerable. For example, Google has access to my (1) email, (2) calendaring, (3) phone records, (4) news reading habits, (5) web searches, (6) analytic bugs on the vast majority of sites I visit, and (7) chat logs. If a bad actor at Google decided to stalk me, I might be in much more trouble than if seven people at seven separate companies independently got it into their heads to stalk me -- the mischief from having all that data together is greater than the sum of its parts.

I still think that the likelihood that anyone at Google will ever care what I do is low enough that the benefit of all their free stuff (and all the competence that goes into running such a large operation) outweighs the risk. There aren't enough creepy employees in the world to stalk everyone on gmail. But yeah, this is a different kind of story from "IT guy at local repair shop snoops on your photos."
posted by jhc at 10:02 AM on September 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

I don't see any sex offense here.

His conduct involved remarks of a sleazily sexual nature, which, coupled with the ages of the victims, marks him out as a likely sexual predator. If he disputes that, let him convince a judge that that is not the case.

The primary purpose of the sex offenders' register is to control likely threats. Barksdale is a likely threat.
posted by acb at 10:13 AM on September 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Teens? Maybe he was doing a study on how many "likes" are in a chat session or how many times GR8 was being used?

Seems like a boring audience to spy on.
posted by stormpooper at 10:19 AM on September 15, 2010

> The primary purpose of the sex offenders' register is to control likely threats. Barksdale is a likely threat.

I don't know. There's a pretty clear line between e-snooping and actual physical sexual assault. As far as I know the registry is not intended to be anything resembling "proactive", nor should it be as the possibility for misrepresentation (and the subsequent hardships that entails) is too great.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:20 AM on September 15, 2010

His conduct involved remarks of a sleazily sexual nature, coupled with the ages of the victims

He's certainly a stalker, and if there's a registry for stalkers he should go on it. Creepy power dynamics are not always sexual, and if the "sex offender" registy is for people who are in to creepy power dynamics, it should be re-named. I see no clear evidence that the conversations were in any way sexual.

Perhaps my opinions are colored by an immediate family member of mine who tends to hang out with people much younger than he. I can't imagine putting him on a sex offender registry just because he has a youthful mind - he dates within his age range but it's hard to find 27-yr-olds who are in to Magic: The Gathering and Yu-Gi-Oh.
posted by muddgirl at 10:24 AM on September 15, 2010

Surelty sexually aggravated stalking would qualify, though.
posted by acb at 10:25 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

This does seem like a single bad actor, though.

Two! Two bad actors! Ahahaha! *thunder crash*
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 10:26 AM on September 15, 2010

And 40 year olds are Grannies.

So are 30-year-olds.
posted by blucevalo at 10:28 AM on September 15, 2010

Creepy power dynamics are not always sexual

In this case, the sexual nature appears to be implicit in the content and context, which should be taken into account. Hence this, IMHO, counts as sexually aggravated stalking, a sex offence.
posted by acb at 10:29 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Surelty sexually aggravated stalking would qualify, though.

Sure, if sexually-aggravated stalking occurred. Of course, none of us have the whole story but from the Gawker link, it seems more like straight-up on-up-man-ship. He wanted to look cool, he wanted to be their friend, he was a creepy asshole about it.

Some argue that any 27-yr-old who wants to be friends with a 15-yr-old has some sexual purpose in mind. That's a hard and somewhat sad line to defend.
posted by muddgirl at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2010

the sexual nature appears to be implicit in the content and context

What sources are you reading that give you the content? The only article I've read clearly states:

Our source said Barksdale's harassment did not appear to be sexual in nature, although his online communication with the minors (such as inviting underage kids to attend to the movies with him) demonstrated extraordinarily questionable judgment on Barksdale's part. "My gut read on the situation was that there wasn't any strong sexual predatory behavior, just a lot of violating people's personal privacy," our source explained.

posted by muddgirl at 10:31 AM on September 15, 2010

My cursory search of this thread doesn't reveal the very recent XKCD link.

(Note: this is a link to a comic strip. The comic is somewhat dismissive of Google's ability to do exactly what has been done in this egregious instance of violation of privacy. It does not reflect my opinion on the matter, and nobody should infer that I find this amusing. I link it because it it topical, and my intent is to reflect on the nature that life imitates art, much in the same way that Onion articles have a weird way of finding themselves into real world headlines eventually. I mean the previous sentence figuratively, not literally, though sometimes, one wonders.)
posted by Xoebe at 10:33 AM on September 15, 2010

His conduct involved remarks of a sleazily sexual nature

Both of the links in this post specifically claim that the harassment was non-sexual; if you have seen something that says otherwise, please link to it.
posted by enn at 10:37 AM on September 15, 2010

Shit, I just RTFA and realized the engineer's name was really Barksdale. I initially thought people were being clever with "Wire" jokes. I probably just need more caffeine

In terms of Barksdale being charged for this, is that a matter for Google to bring forward or for the people being snooped on? I'm asking in complete ignorance of how the legal system would work in this instance.

(Google Manager) responded to the complaint with a curt email: "Thank you very much for reporting; we'll investigate quietly and get back to you if we need anything more

That seemed odd to me...my response would have been that I'd be investigating quickly, not quietly.
posted by never used baby shoes at 10:39 AM on September 15, 2010

acb: His conduct involved remarks of a sleazily sexual nature, which, coupled with the ages of the victims, marks him out as a likely sexual predator. If he disputes that, let him convince a judge that that is not the case. (emphasis mine)

That's not how it works.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 10:42 AM on September 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

the only thing this any corporation understands is money

FTFY
posted by Joe Beese at 10:46 AM on September 15, 2010

"I never have heard people over the age of majority called 'teens,' regardless of whether the literal age ends in '-teen.' It could be that I'm missing a more frequent usage, but it's still a clumsy way of phrasing it. The 'underage teens' should be called minors, which is what the post does in succeeding paragraphs."

Underage teens puts a much more specific age range (13-17) than minors (8?-17).

"He was demonstrating switching mailboxes, and Outlook helpfully auto-filled the name of previous mailboxes. Listed was the CEO and this guy's own manager, in other words, he had recently accessed their mailboxes. As far as I know, 6 or 7 years later he still works there."

There are legitamite reasons for doing this; at one workplace I routinely accessed my bosses' boss' outlook account, with his permission, to set up fiddly security.
posted by Mitheral at 10:54 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ironically, just last week Google launched its Family Safety Center, dedicated to helping parents keep their children safe on the Internet. But as this disturbing incident suggests, the biggest threat to kids' privacy might be Google employees themselves

Really? I think that disturbing paragraph suggests someone should take some more journalism classes.

In any case, I can only hope these kids' messages were not of the "OMG!!1! SUMWON IS INN YER EMALEZ1!!!" quality. I don't know of many people with the constitution to pore over thousands of missives from average "underage teens." I get a headache just imagining the grammatical horror.

My favorite though, was the general tone of the article and the fact it attempts to convince the reader that there are Powerful Strangers at Google Who Are likely not PEDOPHILES and are reading our kids' messages.

Even if teen TXT SPK doesn't bother you, it really is a simple fact that People, including but not lmited to: underage teens, you, me, your ex-boy/girlfriend, your favorite movie star, are very boring. I would honestly and deeply pity anyone who decided that it was their life's mission to peruse and follow everything I wrote on the internet, or chatted about with my friends.

In this specific case, with these specific people, and with this specific Google Engineer, it was a display of infantile power over these kids. Kids who were younger, less experienced, less knowledgable, and in a position to be "abused" in this manner, by someone who, due to a emotional or mental issue, enjoys perpetrating this type of "abuse." I'm sure this issue manifests itself in many other ways in this person's life, especially with those unfortunate other people who are in similar circumstances in relation to him. That said, to think that everyone or most, or even some of those with access to these databases cares or is mindnumbingly bored enough to actually think what any of us have to say to someone else in regular conversation is presumptuous, and just ego.
posted by Debaser626 at 10:55 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

never used baby shoes: "Shit, I just RTFA and realized the engineer's name was really Barksdale. I initially thought people were being clever with "Wire" jokes."

I know, right? I was watching The Wire as I was reading this post, too. I kid you not. (Season 4, but Wire nonetheless)
posted by iamkimiam at 10:56 AM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Hey, you. Yes, you. Somebody is watching you read this right now. No such thing as privacy protection on the internet (unless you encrypt, but that just makes them more interested in what you're doing).
posted by peppito at 11:14 AM on September 15, 2010

Avon did what he had to do to keep his corners.
posted by bjork24 at 11:19 AM on September 15, 2010

And 40 year olds are Grannies.

So are 30-year-olds.

No, 30 year olds are milfs.

I can't believe I just joined in on that. Shame on me. Now I'm gonna have to go do Google confession or something
posted by Ahab at 11:20 AM on September 15, 2010

Anyway, the pictures suggest Barksdale is 27 going on 18. I wonder if the corporate culture at Google encourages man-childness.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:24 AM on September 15, 2010

He's a self-described "hacker", so I don't doubt his ability to gain this information from outside Google if he wanted to.
FYI- Anyone who describes themselves as a "hacker" is unlikely to be able to gain access to much of anything without it being handed to them.

And 40 year olds are Grannies.
So are 30-year-olds.

It's unfortunate, but I've known (in my own family) several 35-year-old grannies.
posted by coolguymichael at 11:38 AM on September 15, 2010

FYI- Anyone who describes themselves as a "hacker" is unlikely to be able to gain access to much of anything without it being handed to them.

To be more precise, he's a Gawker-descibed "self-described 'hacker'".
posted by muddgirl at 11:45 AM on September 15, 2010

We've obtained an email exchange between one person who complained about Barksdale to Google and Eric Grosse, an Engineer Director in Google's security group at the company's Mountain View, Calif. headquarters.

Really, now. And how might this email exchange have been obtained, hmm?

Oh, Gawker. Stoop any lower and you'll be lying down.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:04 PM on September 15, 2010

HEY TECH HEADS THIS IS TECHNICALLY A PEDOPHILE STALKING YOUNG GIRLS.
"underage teen" means these girls were probably 13-14 years old if not younger in the 10s. why was this pedo not reported to authorities by Google? this is not creepy, this is a pedophile attack waiting to happen.
posted by liza at 12:19 PM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Debaser626 is correct. I used to hang out with some radio geeks who dabbled in eavesdropping. The people who do that are into the technology and problem-solving aspects; not into the information to be gleaned from anybody's private communications. Private communications are 99.99999% boring. I only know of one instance where someone succeeded in extracting racy stuff after who-knows-how-many man-hours of fishing. People who do surveillance for law-enforcement have got one of the most boring jobs ever devised in the human mind. You overhear halves of cell-phone conversations all day long. Is anything you hear remotely interesting?

This pathetic fired google employee was probably not trying to do anything more than impress those kids. Not that he did not deserve to be fired. I see no evidence he is any kind of monster.
posted by bukvich at 12:25 PM on September 15, 2010

The primary purpose of the sex offenders' register is to control likely threats. Barksdale is a likely threat.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of how the sex offender registry works. While the offenses vary from state to state, you have to be convicted of a crime that falls under the list of "these are things that will land you on the sex offender registry" heading. In some states this can be as "tame" as peeing in a public place, in others it's a lot more strict.

Being a sleazeball not convicted of one of the offenses that will put you on this registry does not qualify you. In many cases being on the sex offender registry will literally destroy your life. We can debate whether this is justice being served because of the things sex offenders have likely done to their victims and I'm not trying to downplay that. But seriously, being an asshole on the internet, even a privacy-invading asshole with bad judgment should not, in my opinion, land you on a publicly Googleable [oh the irony] sex offender registry database.

And yes, I am typing this from the last of 40 year old grandmas. On preview "underage teen" means under 18 and that's all we know. It means too young to put their name in a news article.
posted by jessamyn at 12:27 PM on September 15, 2010 [8 favorites]

I love how, even despite specific multiple listings in the article that there was no sexual component to it, people keep wanting the guy put in prison for imagined pedophilia.

Also, it was both boys and girls he spied on. Not just girls.

Also also, the boy was 15, the girl's ages were not listed, but it is probably reasonable to assume a 15 year old boy was not in a technology group with 10 year old girls. They were likely of similar age.

Of course it was wrong and he shouldn't have done it, and I think he should be prosecuted for privacy and possible wiretap violations. But bringing pedophilia into it without any proof is a little reactionary, don't you think?

If they show chat logs of him trying to sexually molest these kids, then by all means, throw the book at him. Otherwise, it is worse than speculation.
posted by discountfortunecookie at 12:30 PM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

"underage teen" means these girls were probably 13-14 years old if not younger in the 10s.

No, it doesn't. (Tenteen?) That strikes me as a particularly creepy train of thought...
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 1:01 PM on September 15, 2010

He is skinny, has long hair, and terrible taste in clothes.

He's worse than a pedophile.

He's a hipster.

(That was a joke, meant in reference to the prevalent anti-hipsterism on Metafilter. Hipsters are not actually worse than pedophiles, unless they are hipster pedophiles. My mentioning pedophiles should not be construed as an attempt to endorse pedophilia or glorify pedophiles. I also have no personal animosity or disdain towards hipsters, frankly, I don't understand anti-hipsterism, which, to me, makes it all the more humorous. You, the reader, may or may not share this attitude about hipsters, or about pedophiles. If you are a hipster and have taken offense at my comment, please be aware that I made the comment only in jest and mean no true offense. If you are a pedophile and have taken offense at my comments, I want to punch you repeatedly until you die from internal bleeding. That should not be construed to be a threat, simply an expression, one that I have no intent to implement, except where such may be in full compliance with the laws, regulations, and codes of state, local and federal authorities.)

Metafilter, you make me feel tired sometimes.
posted by Xoebe at 1:45 PM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

> Metafilter, you make me feel tired sometimes.

It would seem that's not any better.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:48 PM on September 15, 2010

Metafilter, you make me feel tired sometimes.

Then don't post in the first place? Or take it to Metatalk our distaste for dumb jokes is making you feel anxious about the quality of your jokes? Or if you want help for your anxiety and/or your compulsion to post dumb jokes, maybe that should go in AskMe...
posted by muddgirl at 1:52 PM on September 15, 2010

Is there an article, news report, police report, credible source, release from the kids' families, internal memo, raving homeless guy, devil-tounged dog, talking mushroom that said this guy had ANY sexual intent? If so, please let me know, because I'm confused as to how we got from: "Although inappropriate, there is no evidence of sexual misconduct" written in the article to some "AHHHHHHHH!!!! PEDOPHILE KILL KILL KILL!!!" You-Tube worthy comments based solely on the linked article.

When I was in my "underage teen" years circa 14-15, crippled by social awkwardness, suffering from unaddressed emotional and mental problems, and unknowingly about to embark on a 15+ year battle with untreated alcoholism, I often was too afraid to interact with my peers, was not interested in hanging out and talking about the stuff everyone seemed to do, so instead made friends and hung around with kids in the neighborhood who were in the 7-10 range. Family members, neighbors and the like made comments, and I even knew something was off somewhere with me regarding that specifically. It's obviously not a high point of my life, and I think back on it now and cringe that I was so screwed up at the time, but at no point was it a sexual thing.

That being said, I would most definitely not want someone in their late 20s-30s befriending (as in BFF vs. mentor, or the like) my future child, or my nephews or nieces. But the automatic MSNBC 20/20 ingrained responses that he must be a predator, rapist, child molester and deserves to be treated as such really just shows how intelligence is no defense against learned ignorance (or possibly in some cases, ignorance incarnate) when it comes to certain folk and their reaction to certain hot button media issues.
posted by Debaser626 at 3:24 PM on September 15, 2010

some of us, those with no friends, keep throwing information into google accounts PRAYING that someone there will compile it and stalk us.

[e-mail]
posted by HuronBob at 3:29 PM on September 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

enn: And Google should have turned over the results of its investigation to law enforcement; it's not for them to decide that this isn't a crime.

You have a misunderstanding about how crimes are investigated.

Step 1: Some law enforcement body has an indication that a crime was committed. Except for the fine IANAL experts on the blue, that hasn't happened.

Step 2: They investigate the crime. Appropriate authorities could certainly request any information the company has about this ex-employee. (Have you heard of a subpoena?) No authorities have done so.

??

Step 4: Google is evil.

Glad to see that the discussion here has picked up the Valleywag attempt to make Google seem generally scary.
posted by purpleclover at 4:08 PM on September 15, 2010

And yes, I am typing this from the last of 40 year old grandmas

I don't have faintest idea of how to parse this sentence. What happened to all the other year old grandmas? Were they no good for typing?

not that it's super-relevent or anything, but it's kinda intriguingly bizarre
posted by Sparx at 4:38 PM on September 15, 2010

Oh god, I meant the "land of." That's sort of funny though.
posted by jessamyn at 4:43 PM on September 15, 2010

I would say "underage teen" means "teenager under the age of sexual consent" and I would have thought it's fairly obvious before I started reading this thread. Is the age of consent not 16 in the US?
posted by robertc at 4:45 PM on September 15, 2010

robertc: "Is the age of consent not 16 in the US?"

Not everywhere.
posted by Mitheral at 4:56 PM on September 15, 2010

I would say "underage teen" means "teenager under the age of sexual consent" and I would have thought it's fairly obvious before I started reading this thread. Is the age of consent not 16 in the US?

Barring any elaboration, "underage teen," in the States, normally means a teen under the age of majority (i.e., younger than eighteen.)
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 5:37 PM on September 15, 2010

Wow, he looks just like Daniel Faraday.
posted by limeonaire at 5:37 PM on September 15, 2010

enn: "The warning about the Patriot Act is clearly an example, not a statement that that is the only sort of privacy violation you have to worry about."

Nor should Eric Schmidt be expected to summarize a publically-available privacy policy in every single public appearance.

Look, I can't use the quote or any public statement to prove the negative "Google will never violate its own stated privacy policy by exploiting the information of its users." But there's no organization ever for whom that's true. In the meantime, Google's products help me be better at my job and have more fun, and I give my information in place of money. It's one of many potential arrangements worth considering when deciding whether and how to use the Internet, but it's far from an illegitimate one.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 7:50 PM on September 15, 2010

"underage teen" means these girls were probably 13-14 years old if not younger in the 10s.

See? *This* is why you say "underage teen" and not minor. Hell, you could say "college age" and someone would go "these girls were in education, probably in junior high if not kindergarten."
posted by bonaldi at 3:32 AM on September 16, 2010

And yes, I am typing this from the last of 40 year old grandmas

I don't have faintest idea of how to parse this sentence. What happened to all the other year old grandmas? Were they no good for typing?

Let's just go with it:

And yes, I am typing this from the last of 40 year old grandmas....

Staring at the words of the page, I realize the absurdity of it, but yet it's true. I've been miniaturized and injected into the body of Angelina Dodson, the last of the 40 year old grandmas. The end result of a massive, desperate government project to discover the cause of the catastrophe, and to find a way to reverse it.

The first signs of the looming disaster seemed innocuous enough at first...
posted by empath at 6:30 AM on September 16, 2010