zlacker

>>i13e+(OP)
Sorry to break it to you folks but if you hated your data being with Google, you are in for a surprise on how atrociously bad Microsoft is at privacy and security. Multiple close friends who have worked at Microsoft tell me that search history data - who is searching what, is basically sitting in systems with ACLs so bad that 20-30K employees have access through transitive membership of groups. To access a customer's data you just need to know token which is logged everywhere and is apparently very easy to generate. I have heard horror stories from them about privacy incidents which never went public.

From what I know about Google, they are serious about least privilege type of stuff internally and employees dont get arbitrary unbound access to systems or data.

>>Bhilai+8m
I wouldn't be extraordinarily surprised if this is the case, but I do not expect it to be as lax as you suggest and given how it's presented to us it reads like someone trying to get people to not look at something. If you have things you can present as evidence that would carry water for your argument, otherwise it's random inflammatory claim on in the internet.

And I agree, Google does take security more seriously than most places.

>>mc32+It
Of the major three cloud providers, Azure is by far the one whose security bugs I hear most about. Not that this necessarily has much relevance to search, but it doesn't inspire confidence in their culture.

>>tormeh+k11
Agreed, but parent poster made fabulous claims based on hearsay. It could be true. But it also might be a motivated competitor trying to distract their rival as well.

Related question, if security is so bad, how did they win Project J.E.D.I? (honestly curious)

>>mc32+R31
Cloud security is different, especially for these government contracts. Everything has to be certified to a higher standard and the staff all have to have clearances. A clearance gives you a nice comp boost, so dorking around looking at stuff because you can is a good way to get it yanked.