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

121–130 of 772 posts

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

#121

Post by colejohnson66 »

playcache wrote: post #113
inetknght wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't misunderstand. A deposition won't care whether things are separated by a software wall. A deposition will want everything on the device. So it's better to just not mix the two at all.

The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. The 'work profile' feature uses app-sandbox which in effects means every app runs as a Linux type isolated UID (not to differnt to a container), there is no breach around that unless some zero day attack comes to light, which would bw patched way before acme corps IT department picks it up…

US centric, but courtrooms don’t have time to hear about the technicalities that show something isn’t possible. They only care that they think it’s possible. Judges aren’t programmers and the law isn’t black and white like code.

Also, you can’t just not respond to a deposition or refuse to hand over your phone as evidence in a crime. That’s obstruction of justice and possibly contempt of court.

Basically, you can sit there for hours on end explaining that it’s impossible to break the “wall”, but that’s time and time in money in the court system (literally), or you can just fork over the phone because it’s not your personal one.

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

#122

Post by BeetleB »

playcache wrote: post #113
inetknght wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I don't misunderstand. A deposition won't care whether things are separated by a software wall. A deposition will want everything on the device. So it's better to just not mix the two at all.

The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. The 'work profile' feature uses app-sandbox which in effects means every app runs as a Linux type isolated UID (not to differnt to a container), there is no breach around that unless some zero day attack comes to light, which would bw patched way before acme corps IT department picks it up…

> The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords.

Which is likely legally allowed for a deposition.

> They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it.

Telling the courts/lawyers to piss off is not a viable option. That's not how depositions work. You might be able to get a lawyer to file legal motions with expert testimony attached pointing out they shouldn't need access to the whole phone for the reasons you said, but 99% of people will not bother getting a lawyer for something like this.

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

#123

Post by [deleted] »

marshray wrote: post #75
tsdlts wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#124

Post by brundolf »

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…

1) This is why I never have and probably never will work at a giant company, because those tend to be the ones that think this way (and have the resources to do something about it)

2) This is why I only ever sign into Slack on my phone, not my work email. It neatly compartmentalizes work stuff, and isn't subject to the device-wide security policies that you sometimes have to agree to when signing into company email.

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

#125

Post by anonymousDan »

giantg2 wrote: post #72
saghm wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

She was reminding management (who are also employees) that anti-union stuff is illegal?

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

#126

Post by kls »

alistairSH wrote: post #94
eschneider wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does it flag me as an old that the last thing on earth I want to do is check work messages/docs from my phone? There's a concept of 'checking out for the day and going home' that's important to not going crazy, especially now. If something goes wrong, or there's an emergency, folks have a number they can text/call. But constantly check messages? No way.

Maybe I'm old too. I used to keep work email and calendar on my personal phone. A few years later, I disabled the email because it distracted from life. I leave the calendar simply to let me know when I have an early meeting (my day normally begins at 9, but work with teams in India, so occasionally have earlier meetings).

I gave up a phone, 4 years ago due to the fact that I am involved in anti-child trafficking and while it is not a grave risk, the reality is there are bad people that traffic in children and the less trackable I am, the more that risk profile goes down.

Anyways, that is just backstory to say, getting rid of my phone was the best thing I ever did, I have a burner with a few hundred minutes on it, in my truck for emergencies but I honestly never use it.

A good deal of people could actually untethered themselves from their phone dependency and actually find out that they enjoy it a lot more than being leashed to one.

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

#127

Post by djrogers »

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…

> assume that HR can view EVERYTHING on your phone, because they can

Patently false, for many values of ‘everything’ and ‘phone’.

An MDM has zero visibility into an iPhone’s browsing history, iMessage content, or the content of any app not installed directly by the MDM. So things like Signal, WhatsApp, and even the default mail app are off limits.

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

#128

Post by pmiller2 »

scarmig wrote: post #86
pmiller2 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where's the evidence of "spamming?" Is Google "spamming" its employees on a regular basis with their "approved" messages?

When a Googler visits particular domains, she gets a message from the internal security tool like "Do not upload user data to third-party services. Use secure alternatives instead." This is to prevent employees from inadvertently causing a PII incident or violating contractual obligations to external customers.

And?

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

#129

Post by neura »

VikingCoder wrote: post #55
jimbob45 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fuck what she used the tool for. At my job (and most jobs, I would think), if you check in any superfluous code, you’re going to be seen as a bad coder. Regressions are real and are highly embarrassing to both the company and you.

This was an internal tool. How will a regression in that be "highly embarrassing ... to the company"?

Wait, how was this literal incident not highly embarrassing to the company? "Our internal security team has been known to put up unapproved messages in popups that only apply to specific partners/vendors". Doesn't even matter what the content was in that context.

When you do consider the content/context, then we need to consider that this vendor/partner (IRI) was likely offended by the implications and the relationship between Google and the vendor/partner was likely damaged.

IRI did the right thing in not publicly commenting on the issue, though, so we'll never know for sure what actual affect this incident had on that relationship.

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

#130

Post by suifbwish »

BeetleB wrote: post #122
playcache wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. The 'work profile' feature uses app-sandbox which in effects means every app runs as a Linux type isolated UID (not to differnt to a container), there is no breach around that unless some zero day attack comes to light, which would bw patched way before acme corps IT department picks it up…

> The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. Which is likely legally allowed for a deposition. > They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it. Telling the courts/lawyers to piss off is not a viable option. That's not how depositions work. You might be able to get a lawyer t…

Or you could just get really drunk and lose your phone. Happens all the time. The phone company will verify you called for a replacement and the bar will verify you got trashed.
Post reply on HN