241–250 of 779 posts
This doesn't sounds like privileged access, it sounds more like they have issues with their pipeline. If all what it takes for code to get in Production(even if it's internal), is at least two approvals, I think that's a bigger problem.
> Kathryn Spiers, who worked as a security engineer, updated an internal Chrome browser extension so that each time Google employees visited the website of IRI Consultants — the Troy, Michigan, firm that Google hired this year amid a groundswell of labor activism at the company — they would see a pop-up message that read: “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities.” So basically, the Go…
But that doesn't mean it was OK. It just means the co-workers might have greenlit it without taking a close look, or were misled as to what they were approving, or that they were approving it because the code was correct technically, and approval isn't about judging the code's product purpose.
If this tool was NOT meant to be used as the equivalent of "posters on the wall" and she modified it, regardless of co-worker code approval, it DOES seem to be an abuse of privileges.
If her manager had given her the OK, then she's in the right. Otherwise, I have a hard time seeing how this isn't abuse of one's position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Spiers, 21, said she went through the standard approval process, which requires two co-workers to greenlight changes, before updating the Chrome browser extension That sounds like code review approvals, not actual project/management approval of the 'feature'. We have the same: Cannot commit any code change unless 2 other team members have reviewed it. That has nothing to do with having actual project/management app…
I'd agree, it sounds a lot like a code review, but at Google that was also the approval standard for deploying such an extension. I don't really see how Google could be in the right here though. If they have an internal program for creating alerts/extensions for specific websites, and Spiers followed the normal procedure for adding such an extension, there doesn't seem to be a problem. The only problem is Google bein…
I don't see how Google isn't in the right here. The approval process for this security tool was designed to minimize red-tape and maximize contributions because the goal was security, and the assumption was that the lax process wouldn't be abused. The clear intent of the tool is not to push the political agenda. It was there to warn about security-related issues while browsing. She abused the process and deserved to be reprimanded.
Here's an example .. like most companies we have a wiki that anybody can edit. The intent is to get contributions from everybody around product-related issues (e.g. debugging a particular problem, how to configure the product for a specific use-case). Nobody polices usage of this wiki, and the wiki has no specific access controls to bar any individual from editing any page. Certainly though if someone started putting in notes at the top of some of the pages to push a political agenda that would be an abuse of the process, wouldn't you say?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Giant piles of money. Probably still gets you an easy CTO title at a startup after 2-4 years at Google.
> Giant piles of money. Not anymore, really. It was the case a couple of years ago but right now, for rank-and-file employees, Google downlevels heavily and targets around 80% of the market rate. For some reason, people are still flocking at their doors and because of high supply of candidates, they can afford to be both very selective and very cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The purpose of the extension within Google is to notify you of privacy and security risks for potentially dangerous websites. The comment she injected into a benign law website has nothing to do with that and whether there was some weak approval process that missed this glaring fact doesn’t make it okay.
“Benign law website”, “anti-union PR firm” tomato, potatoe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would any sane person be against unions? I have no horse in this race. But as a counterpoint, pretty much everything in New York is more expensive due to heavy unionisation, particularly around construction and public services.
This is an incredibly bold claim, can you cite this?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...
It's not just unions, but here is a taste:
There are “nippers” to watch material being moved around and “hog house tenders” to supervise the break room. Each crane must have an “oiler,” a relic of a time when they needed frequent lubrication. Standby electricians and plumbers are to be on hand at all times, as is at least one “master mechanic.” Generators and elevators must have their own operators, even though they are automatic. An extra person is required to be present for all concrete pumping, steam fitting, sheet metal work and other tasks.
In New York, “underground construction employs approximately four times the number of personnel as in similar jobs in Asia, Australia, or Europe,” according to an internal report by Arup, a consulting firm that worked on the Second Avenue subway and many similar projects around the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why would any sane person be against unions? I have no horse in this race. But as a counterpoint, pretty much everything in New York is more expensive due to heavy unionisation, particularly around construction and public services.
There's a lot of other reasons stuff is expensive in NY. Europe is heavily unionized and somehow they still manage to build subways at a lot less than $1 billion per mile.
Europe doesn't have this problem because they have good unions. We can't have those in America. I really don't know why, but that's just how it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still worth discussing if their reaction warranted the offense. Would they have fired her had she added a pop-up on Earth Day encouraging employees to recycle? Or would she have received a slap on the wrist for that. In other words, how much of what she was advocating was part of the decision to fire?
That is a good question. Is this a fireable offense regardless of the content? If not, what kind of content is fireable, subject matter that is political, religious, vulgar, or offensive? Putting this into an internal tool does seem unprofessional in my opinion. Why bite the hand that feeds you?
Why the struggle, why the strain? Why make trouble, why make scenes? Why go against the grain, why swim upstream? It ain't, it ain't, it ain't no use You're bound, you're bound, you're bound to lose What's done, what's done, what's done is done That's the way the river runs
So why get wet? Why break a sweat? Why waste your precious breath? Why beat your handsome brow? Nothing changes, nothing changes, nothing changes Anyhow
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FTA: " The tool is managed by the platform security team, for which Spiers worked for almost two years as a security engineer. "
Is it part of the security teams mission to insure legal compliance to workplace laws? I’m part of my company’s “architecture team” but that doesn’t mean I have the right (even though I do have the access) to spin up an X1 AWS instance at work with 2TB of RAM. If my immediate manager said it was okay, I would have sense enough to get it confirmed by my CTO.
But my overall point is not that I think her alteration was appropriate (given the context of the tool). But that her mistake could reasonably be seen as one made in good faith, especially because the content itself does not outright violate company policy or labor law. In other words: approved content, unapproved venue. The question is: that's a fireable offense?
So why do you keep likening it to hypotheticals that would reasonably violate standard policy and procedure, such as conspiring with your manager to spend $53K on a Mac Pro that you use at home? Or injecting via browser notification a "political_message_you_dont_agree_with"?
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/13/googles-settlement-on-speech...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you not read the part where she did, where she followed the process by the book and it was approved? Or did you just have your mind made up to decide to side with Google instead?
I love that a site full of engineers is pretending that getting a pull request approved by colleagues is the same thing as getting management's approval for a new, most likely controversial feature. Google is clearly trying to squash union organizing at the company but let's not pretend this employee was correct in her actions. Google being evil and this employee being in the wrong are not mutually exclusive.
Does nobody ask what the code is for and why you're doing it? I mean, I don't expect people to require detailed specs before approving, but a quick "what's this code for, and why are you doing it?" before addressing the details.
Surely that's the bare minimum, isn't it?