It's your prerogative. Nobody said anything about "exfiltrating." Showing someone X doesn't mean that X isn't owned by its owner anymore. These aren't semantic arguments.
You're going to have a hard time expressing what exactly is the violation when everyone has signed the same NDAs and CIIAs! Like if you work for Google, and I work for Google, you can fathom, well I can look at code you've written for Google.
Okay, now if I only "work" for Google, which like 200,000 people do, and they've signed the same exact agreements as you... It's your prerogative!
> criminally or civilly
It's your prerogative! You can leetcode instead!
I am not saying this is you. But there are many developers, arguably the majority, who complain tirelessly about the status quo of interviewing. And given one opportunity after another to change that status quo - doing the stuff Simon says, doing the stuff I am saying - they make no effort! They vamp about how it's impossible.
They think their social local mobile trip planning startup website code is sensitive. They think their 15 layers of Dagger dependency injections is sensitive. It's not. If you want to change the status quo from leetcoding, you're going to have to screen share a "diff" here or there, and show people concretely what the hell you've been doing for a year at BigCo or UnicornCo. I cannot predict the future and I cannot generalize, but in my experience, the likelihood of criminal, civil or even the far more realistic reputational and cultural repurcussion is extremely small.
All I am saying is, the reason this hasn't happened yet is because most people spend a year at BigCo and UnicornCo doing nothing of any substance. I mean maybe that's going to change. But it's really tough, nobody is being honest with how truly tremendously mismanaged and ZIRP-fueled large employers are. It hasn't been this way forever, but it has for at least 10 years, and it means some crazy things have happened in the job market that made no sense.
Copying work code to a non-work device to show during an interview is exfiltrating code. Well staffed security orgs at large companies have insider threat teams that look for this type of thing, in addition to monitoring for exfiltration of company documents and other materials to personal devices.
> Like if you work for Google, and I work for Google, you can fathom, well I can look at code you've written for Google.
wait how does that work in the context of an interview though? You're by definition interviewing somewhere where you don't currently work
> you're going to have to screen share a "diff" here or there, and show people concretely what the hell you've been doing for a year at BigCo or UnicornCo. I cannot predict the future and I cannot generalize, but in my experience, the likelihood of criminal, civil or even the far more realistic reputational and cultural repurcussion is extremely small
It is more common than you think. I've had candidates submit code samples with proprietary code from their current employer during interviews. One example: some files from a telco billing system. Right or wrong, there is essentially zero risk for this sort of thing.
I do hiring at my company. If a candidate showed me non-public code during an interview, they're an immediate no hire. Interview is immediately over. This isn't my personal preference or anything either. It's specifically in our interview training.
It demonstrates a clear inability to protect company IP. That's a big deal. Especially if you're a publicly traded company.
This typical semantic-pedantry line from piracy apologists misses the point - piracy is theft-adjacent even if you get to pick your use of "theft". Incidentally, my definition of "theft", and that of most content creators, includes the act of consuming something without compensating the creator on their terms - which includes piracy.
A fundamental property of theft is that the action deprives someone of something they had. Piracy is not theft-adjacent. It has nothing do to with theft. It's a completely different concept.
That's an interesting thought. So when I overhear a conversation which was not aimed at me I am stealing. Quite an interesting definition with widereaching implication
As a book author, I can say that, "Yes, something was stolen. My opportunity to earn a living taking care of readers."
Now you may believe the incredibly self-serving baloney from big companies like Google. You may want to pretend that infringement isn't theft. To you, I hope that some homeless kid breaks into your home, starts squatting, and says that, "Hey, this isn't theft. Nothing has been destroyed."
Actually very much the revenue for each purchase that didn't happen this way was stolen. I'm not a pitacy Hardliner and don't see an issue with someone in a bad financial spot pirating things but this is bullshit.
That's not really the same, you could have a copy of my credit card, but you using it to make purchases would become an issue. Regardless, that quickly steps out of the domain of intellectual property.
If I use your copied credit card to buy software, all that happens is (a) some bits get written to my computer's hard disk and (b) some bits get written to a Visa or Mastercard server's hard disk. Why would you get upset about that?
EDIT: ok, it's fun playing obtuse, but more seriously it is also very obtuse to pretend that intellectual property is not property. I think you have to be pretty stupid to not understand why an author who spends a decade painstakingly creating a work of literature is entitled to ownership of reproductions of that work.
That's fine in a vacuum, but I feel like you'd very quickly run into the need for a security update, or some external API that changes, etc. You can't ignore all externalities, usually.
That book was used in my "intro to higher math" class my freshman year. A very humbling experience, seeing that cover again gave me a bit of a knot in my stomach.
