Hacker News Reader

Comment by mic47 | Hacker News Reader

Is it just me, or do "secret" have negative connotation? Because for me it does, and I am really sad from journalist when they use "secret" or "secretly" in headlines, when it just mean internal, or just not disclosed. What is interesting that the article does not contain word secret, and they always use the word internal.

View on HN

It's the headline, and "secret research" sounds sexier than "internal research," at least to me.

I was just going to say the same thing: It's clickbait-phraseology.

the content is the responsibility of the author, but the headline is the responsibility of the marketing department.

Internal doesn't necessarily mean "not public" though. "Private" is perhaps a better term.

people don't typically call reports "internal" if they are released to the public. what would "internal" mean in that context?

the intended audience is inside the company. A US Gov GAO report on (eg) transport spending might be called 'internal' to the govt since its primarily public policy recommendations generated by and for the govt, but the report still has to be publicly accessible

Ok, we've taken secrecy out of the title above.

I don’t think of secret as having a negative connotation.

Secret Santa, secret key exchange, etc it’s just descriptive.

Context is everything. The things you're talking about are innocuous with no negative loading or reputation.

Facebook isn't innocuous and has a high negative load and reputation. Tack the word "secret" in front of some internal research they did and it puts a darker shade on something every company does (internal research).

Doesn’t that just mean it’s Facebook with the negative connotation not secret?

Something like ‘Secret Facebook network architecture’ is rather neutral.

I think it's the interplay between both the words, especially considering that Facebook's scandals are privacy related, it might subconsciously trigger some sort of negative reaction when you hear that they are keeping secrets (though that's obviously not what's going on here)

“Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better”

“Tesla’s secret battery program”

Neither has negative connotation to me.

Like you said, I think it’s because Facebook regularly acts unethically in public view. Anything they do in secret or private will be viewed with even more suspicion.

I cant explain it, but

> Kellogg’s secret research to make cereal taste better

to me, this sounds negative

> Tesla’s secret battery program

to me this does not sound negative.

"Facebook Isn't innocuous"

This is 100% your opinion.

And that of the FTC...

Is "secret" not one of the classifications for internal documents? "top secret", "secret", "confidential", "restricted". While this classification is usually used to classify access to documents of the state, it could also apply to internal documents in large organizations.

I'm not aware of any private sector companies that have more than 2-3 formal "classification" markings, and they're usually more like "internal use only" and "confidential" rather than "secret". For particularly sensitive documents there would of course be additional restrictions, but I'd be surprised if there were companies using the marking "top secret" for that purpose...

I have seen companies with 5. Along the lines of: 1. Public: Public information 2. Internal Use: Confidential business information 3. Confidential: Information that customers consider confidential 4. Sensitive: Personal and Private Information (PII), information that THE LAW considers confidential 5. Highly Sensitive: Encryption keys, server secrets, staff/admin passwords

This list is from a blog I wrote at https://rietta.com/blog/commercial-information-classificatio.... It was adapted from something I originally saw while a student at Georgia Tech. I've consulted with companies that separately developed a substantially similar 5 point list.

Yes. Categories I've encountered at the big tech company I work at include:

* Public

* Company confidential (most things)

* Need to know (only finance people can see some kinds of financials, only people working on a service can see it's logs)

* Legal stuff

* Personnel stuff

* Highly valuable IP (spam detection algorithms etc)

It can be but I’d be surprised if that document had anything like it. Very few things are confidential internally at Facebook. Compensation, seniority level and review are the most common “Confidential” category but they are typically marked as “personal and confidential”. A few things are permission-access-controlled (think things involving the Police where rules of evidence apply) but I don’t remember if they had a name; “Talk to legal” was the short-hand.

Source: I used to work at Facebook & I know Tom C. personally. I’ve written similar documents four years ago. There were publicly visible internally. Few people really cared outside of senior Product people.

How can seniority level be secret?

"seniority level" an in "what level have you been promoted to".

At Google you don't have to disclose your level, but most people do and most of my coworkers know I'm L5. At Facebook my understanding is they've tried to build a culture where people don't know each other's levels, to focus more on "what can you do" instead of "what does management think you can do".

Then why have different levels at all and just pay more or less? Why hide someone's position/level.. why even have levels? Is this a shield for management.. you shouldn't know Jim is more valuable.. easier to pull the wool over employee eyes?

You have levels to guide HR in making compensation decisions relative to the rest of the market. For example, Google might set their target at 105% of the top range of the market in order to retain the best employees. 105% of a fresh graduate's salary is very different from the same rate for a top-of-field industry recognized veteran. Even in those cases, that's a guide so exceptions are made as merited.

And no, I don't work at Google :)

I greatly doubt that culture actually exists. There is either a formal known hierarchy or an informal one with a lot of backstabbing and power plays. In the latter you may not know who is doing it.

Plus as you said people will disclose it anyways. People know their level and others even if it is a "secret". People know others salaries too. So the entire concept is rendered moot

Reply on news.ycombinator.com