Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 772 posts

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#71

Post by [deleted] »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #54
lotsofpulp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vorpalhex is stating action X was wrong in the first place, and describing a situation Y as an example to show why action X is wrong. I have policies at my workplace that disallow something because it's impractical to judge every single situation and then have to deal with the gray area.

That's a fair perspective, but that's not applicable here. The punishment isn't because of how much she violated the policies, it's to send a message. At Google, someone once disruptively modified the root permissions for the entire company-wide monorepo to show off that the permissions scheme was fallible. They were left off with a verbal warning, even though on paper they massively abused their position, and could…

[deleted]

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#72

Post by giantg2 »

saghm wrote: post #58
giantg2 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the extension actually about the laws or policies related to using the site in question? Not necessarily about laws pertaining to things that happen outside of the use of the site, such as unionizing.

IIRC, the website the notice was added to was specifically a the site of law firm that Google had contracted with regards to the ongoing concerns of unionization. It seems like there's a fair argument to be made that it was related to the site, although there are arguments against that as well.

But in that case, the notice would fall out of scope of the plugin - which is to notify Google employees of the relevant laws or company policies about the use of a site. This would be about the generic right to unionize, which wouldn't relate to that site specifically. What actions would a user be taking on that site in that capacity, especially if that firm is representing the opposition?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#73

Post by comeonseriously »

ditonal wrote: post #40

One thing that happens in SV is: * Employer says "hey, we have all these convenient corporate app, wouldn't it be nice to be able to check work messages and work docs on your mobile? Just install our app to "corp-ify" your phone" * Employer now views your mobile device as containing sensitive company IP and therefore they have the right to snoop on anything on your phone. If you install corp on your phone, Google vie…

If I'm required to be on call (and I don't mind being on call; I write the software so I should answer questions when it fails), I require a work phone. I never, ever, put work comm on my personal phone (or laptop, etc). Period. What company that can afford me cannot afford a phone for me?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#74

Post by vmception »

janesvilleseo wrote: post #46
ditonal wrote: post #40

One thing that happens in SV is: * Employer says "hey, we have all these convenient corporate app, wouldn't it be nice to be able to check work messages and work docs on your mobile? Just install our app to "corp-ify" your phone" * Employer now views your mobile device as containing sensitive company IP and therefore they have the right to snoop on anything on your phone. If you install corp on your phone, Google vie…

100% agree. People laugh at me why I carry two phones but this is the main reason. If my employer needs me to have a mobile phone they are paying for separate device and plan. It’s a little silly I need to carry 2 phones around but it makes my life so much more convenient. Unknown call on my work phone guess I’ll answer. If it’s on my personal then it’s spam. Leave company, no need to update or port my number. Want t…

everyone laughing isn’t that far off

you have two phones because you sell dopamine hits to users

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#75

Post by marshray »

tsdlts wrote: post #44
sumeno wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.

So if she instead put "Nobody has the right to enter this country illegally" it would be fine because she's just restating the law?

"Entering the country illegally is illegal" is restating the law. Such a statement would likely take on more meaning given the context in which it was said.

"Nobody has the right to ..." is your opinion.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#76

Post by izacus »

manfredo wrote: post #56
sumeno wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.

Yes, you have a right to participate in unionization and politics. But you don't have a right to alter company software to spread your political message. There's a big difference between holding a "Vote X" sign on a street corner on your own time, and using your position as a developer to put up "Vote X" signs on your company's website.

I think apt comparison is - if some Apple or Google engineer would push a non-authorized OTA update to all Apple/Google phones which would add a permanent political banner to homescreen - would you consider this to be a firing offense or not?

And to people who are trying to justify this by process being "technically possible" - there is a non empty set of Apple and Google employees who can technically push any code to your phone remotely. Is it still acceptable for them to use that to push their political agenda?

Because it comes down to trust. You trust people who can push code to your devices to not abuse it.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#77

Post by Veelox »

sumeno wrote: post #8
macspoofing wrote: post #6

>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?

"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.

If she had used a company printer to print pro-union fliers and then shared them I'm 90% she could be fired for misuse of company resources. At to my intuition this feels like using the company printer without permission.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#78

Post by vorpalhex »

JeremyBanks wrote: post #54
lotsofpulp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

vorpalhex is stating action X was wrong in the first place, and describing a situation Y as an example to show why action X is wrong. I have policies at my workplace that disallow something because it's impractical to judge every single situation and then have to deal with the gray area.

That's a fair perspective, but that's not applicable here. The punishment isn't because of how much she violated the policies, it's to send a message. At Google, someone once disruptively modified the root permissions for the entire company-wide monorepo to show off that the permissions scheme was fallible. They were left off with a verbal warning, even though on paper they massively abused their position, and could…

> That's a fair perspective, but that's not applicable here.

It's exactly applicable. If you violate say, finance reporting laws (KYC) then you've violated finance reporting laws. If you've added unauthorized code to an internal tool, well, you've added unauthorized code to an internal tool.

And had it been part of a security disclosure, well, that might be different (did they try other disclosure avenues?), but pushing a political viewpoint isn't. Imagine instead if the employee had added the message "Trump 2020" - how would you feel about that?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#79

Post by Macha »

reaperducer wrote: post #57
ditonal wrote: post #40

One thing that happens in SV is: * Employer says "hey, we have all these convenient corporate app, wouldn't it be nice to be able to check work messages and work docs on your mobile? Just install our app to "corp-ify" your phone" * Employer now views your mobile device as containing sensitive company IP and therefore they have the right to snoop on anything on your phone. If you install corp on your phone, Google vie…

At my company, in order to get access to the corporate email and such on your phone, they require you to install their app on the phone. Then you're required to sign a document acknowledging that when you leave the company they will remotely wipe your phone, including all of your personal apps, documents, photos, etc. Mixing personal and work hardware is never a good idea.

Yes, my last two employers have been similar. And given the requirements, both provide company phones.

I run into coworkers who then decide to use the company phone as their only phone, because the company phone is usually the top of the line iPhone or Samsung Galaxy replaced every 2 years when their personal phone otherwise is some mid range Android or 2+ year old iPhone.

Even when pointed out that the company can wipe it when they leave or even if they just suspect its been compromised, they don't seem to care. I just don't get it.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#80

Post by ed25519FUUU »

sumeno wrote: post #8
macspoofing wrote: post #6

>Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. “Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities,” the notification read I remember that case. Yeah - she deserved to be fired. She used an internal security tool to push her personal political views. How could that not be a fire-able offense?

"Googlers have the right to participate in protected concerted activities" is not a personal political opinion, it is the law.

"Googlers have the right to participate in religious services. Click here to learn more about churches in your area"

It's the law you know.

Post reply on HN