Live data from Hacker News

One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

bloomberg.com

151–160 of 603 posts

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you no longer have to be tolerated by anyone adhering to it. The point of tolerance is to tolerate . Just because you have managed to find an intolerant viewpoint that survives our current memetic filter, does not change the reality that you're the one preaching intolerance, right here . Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for marginalizing some outgroup. I don't thin…

> The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcin…

>at which point we'll have a conversation, and at which point I am morally allowed to no longer tolerate you.

Not op, but curious what actions or behavior you think becomes fair game.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> just weird that people demand that their job adheres to whatever weird thing they like What about "weird" things like not being comfortable with taking on a new project with the military that ultimately helps kill people, or amassing as much personal data on the entire population as the NSA? I mostly agree with your sentiment on the surface. Dont talk politics or religion at work, do your job, and things usually go…

If you're not comfortable doing that project, ask to be re-assigned; most good managers will make that accommodation for an excellent employee. If you're not comfortable working at a company that does that, don't work there. On the other hand, I have no issue working on a military project; your actions could cost me a job if the project gets cancelled. Don't force your views on others; let me keep showing up and doin…

> Don't force your views on others; let me keep showing up and doing my job. I shouldn't end up un-employed because of your personal ethical issues.

This perspective is antithetical to democracy.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#153

> The documents concerned a mandatory tool that was recently installed on the Google Chrome browser on workers’ computers, the employees said. In October, some Google employees raised concerns that the Chrome extension was an internal surveillance tool designed to monitor their attempts to organize protests. It would automatically report staffers who create a calendar event with more than 10 rooms or 100 participants…

Ten rooms or a hundred attendees seems like the kind of event that shouldn't be any kind of problem if it were flagged; presumably that's some kind of company sanctioned event. If it's not, what in the flipping hell are you doing using company property and resources to organize it? I understand that people mix their personal and corporate identities together shamelessly, but that just seems like shockingly poor opsec…

Kinda hard when you work in a huge center owned by the same corporation.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#154
post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like it was a "safety hazard" to have too many people at once in the smoking area behind the textile mill. It is a slippery slope to try to tease apart what is, and what isn't, interference right? Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. I asked about that one, got…

> Google also has a clause in their employment agreement that says you agree to them putting surveillance software on your devices, company supplied and personal, as a condition of your employment. How would Google even know about your personal devices? That seems to only make sense if you intend to use your personal device for work.

This is quite normal BYOD security policy. If you don't intend to use your personal devices for anything work-related (connecting to the same network, using related accounts) this policy shouldn't apply at all.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#155
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, no. I broadly agree with the what many activists at tech companies are supporting, but think that its deliberate attempts to make the workplace more political are unproductive or backfiring. When it gets to the point that a significant percentage of employees are feigning or exaggerating support for political positions to fit in, you have a problem. And the tech companies I've worked at in the SF Bay Area for t…

fighting against the creation of a union is just as a political act as trying to create one (as an example). Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act. Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not interven…

Perhaps in an non-standard understanding of what is and isn't political. An apolitical office is political in the same sense that secularism is a religious stance. It's not catering to any specific religion: it is equally exclusive of all religions. Similarly, an apolitical office doesn't prevent or directly influence the political activity of workers - it just relegates that political activity to spaces outside the office.

> Saying "oh we should keep the office apolitical by not having a union" is a political act. Saying "oh we shouldn't complain about the kind of customers our emplyoer has" is a political act.

That isn't keeping politics out of the workplace - it's the exact opposite. That's explicitly bringing politics into the workplace by trying to tell coworkers what views they should have. Curbing this behavior is exactly what keeping politics out of the workplace is about.

> Acting in opposition to political acts is in itself a political act. The apolitical thing to do would be to _not intervene in others' political processes_. If mgmt let its employees organize labor actions with the same willingness as a movie night, then they would be acting apolitically.

For the third time, Keeping politics out of the workplace does not oppose any view. It's about making clear that the office is not a space for political activity. Yes, the apolitical thing is to not intervene in others' political process.

The reality is, bringing politics into the workplace is a very significant intervention in people's political lives. In the politically active offices I've worked in, plenty of employees feigned support for things they didn't support because they felt it was expected of them. Co workers whose views were part of the company majority dominated the conversation, because co-workers with minority viewpoints didn't want to risk repercussions for voicing unpopular views.

So if you want a company that does not intervene in others' political lives, keeping politics out of the workplace is the most effective approach.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#156
post #144

Although it's generally quite hard to get fired from Google, leakers have always been dealt with severely. Google once upon a time fired a member of the original Macintosh team for leaking information about the Christmas bonus. My guess is that the increased closing off of various documents is to do with the increased amount of confidential partner-related information as Google scales its cloud business. But, as is o…

> unrealistic expectations Basically thinking "Don't do evil" and being a profitable competitive corporation are compatible.

We will never know if it's just wishful thinking or not as Google chose the dark path and basically everybody hates them as much as FB. People still use their products as the're forced to, but are switching at the earliest occasion. So I don't know what the final result would be in the long run.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#157
post #5

"The tracking had made the staff of those departments feel unsafe, the spokeswoman said." ...said the largest worldwide private spy agency the world has ever known.

Maybe this will wake some people up. Up to now their mantra was "we're not doing anything illegal." Yes, it might not be illegal (at least not yet), but you're acting against the wishes and interests of your users, and you can clearly notice it when the same machine is used against you.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#158
post #48

> The documents concerned a mandatory tool that was recently installed on the Google Chrome browser on workers’ computers, the employees said. In October, some Google employees raised concerns that the Chrome extension was an internal surveillance tool designed to monitor their attempts to organize protests. It would automatically report staffers who create a calendar event with more than 10 rooms or 100 participants…

Installing an extension to monitor employee use of a company computer is legal and generally accepted behavior. If the Google calendar is for a personal gmail account, then accessing the calendar details server side is a huge privacy breach.

Just to add EU view on "legal". This is highly illegal and it is criminal offense in same manner as wiretapping. You (as employer, even if you own employee computer) can get jailtime for this although hefty fine is more plausable.

Before employee leaves the company, its manager is responsible to get all the company data stored (by leaving employee) on another computer, then IT takes the computer and wipes all the drives, with at least two persons present.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you no longer have to be tolerated by anyone adhering to it. The point of tolerance is to tolerate . Just because you have managed to find an intolerant viewpoint that survives our current memetic filter, does not change the reality that you're the one preaching intolerance, right here . Hate movements throughout history have been supported by logical-sounding arguments for marginalizing some outgroup. I don't thin…

> The point of tolerance is to tolerate. I... don't think I agree? I would count un-inhibited self-expression if I were looking for a success metric of tolerance, not tolerance itself. (note: you'd need some other metrics lest THAT go off the rails, to be clear) The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcin…

> The idea that you have to tolerate the intelorant makes the original concept self-defeating; if you instead treat tolerance as a treaty, it's self-reinforcing.

No, it is actually not. It is self defeating.

The problem with giving "exceptions" for why you are now allowed to treat another person, in a horrible manner, is that humans are great at trying to take advantage of those exceptions.

Basically nobody who is doing horrible things to other people, believes that they are in the wrong. If you give people an excuse, then they will trick themselves into believing that their actions are not wrong, then they will gladly accept this excuse.

The only way to put a stop to this, is to just unilaterally reject certain behaviors, and say that you will not engage in it, even if you believe the other person "deserves" it.

Because if you let people decide that it is ok to do certain things, if the other person "deserves" it, well you are going to see that people will just find people who "deserve" it a whole lot of the time.

Re: One Google Staffer Fired, Two Others Put on Leave Amid Tensions

#160

Although it's generally quite hard to get fired from Google, leakers have always been dealt with severely. Google once upon a time fired a member of the original Macintosh team for leaking information about the Christmas bonus. My guess is that the increased closing off of various documents is to do with the increased amount of confidential partner-related information as Google scales its cloud business. But, as is o…

Thank god they kept all those spies from stealing that primo Google+ IP ...
Post reply on HN