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

141–150 of 772 posts

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

#141

Post by giantg2 »

esrauch wrote: post #34
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?

I don't think it's so black and white: the "security tool" is a chrome extension for sending notices to employees about the site they are visiting. An analogous situation seems like if the company had a big cork board for safety/security messages and someone posted a paper with that sentence on it next to something the company posted that was perceived as anti-union. It's unclear to me if that other scenario is prote…

"...presumably you couldn't stick such notices just anywhere."

Nor use company resources/infrastructure to distribute it.

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

#143

Post by monknomo »

koheripbal wrote: post #136
anonacct38 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Didn't she inject code into an unrelated internal extension? Depending on your definition of code, that's probably not the case. She added an entry to a config file that contained a mapping of urls to messages. Such as: dropbox.com/upload -> Friendly reminder: please don't upload internal documents to dropbox Also, Google generally trusts engineers and it's not that unusual to have an engineer writing and deploying…

The point is that she took a company communication channel and used it for personal reasons. That's inappropriate.

I'm curious if you've ever looked at a company slack or corporate email system and noticed any not strictly work related purposes?

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

#144

Post by jakelazaroff »

suifbwish wrote: post #130
BeetleB wrote: post #122

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. 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.

IANAL but this strikes me as bad advice.

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

#145

Post by black_puppydog »

jedimastert wrote: post #117
inetknght wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the work profile is supposed to solve that problem: you only add your corp account and install corp apps in work profile Wait until your personal phone, with its work profile, comes into scope of a work-related deposition. You'll find just how paper thin that argument is.

This isn't a legal argument as much as a technical one. Work profiles prevent employers from accessing non-work-profile information

And as a non-legal argument, it won't hold up in a context where anything non-legal essentially doesn't matter.

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

#146

Post by bee_rider »

izacus wrote: post #132
icelancer wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it. That's not how a subpoena works if it's on the same physical device. Good luck finding a judge who understands the concept of a "software wall."

So you're saying that judge will ignore the separate profiles but it'll magically stop from depositioning all your phones that might contain work conversations? That's a tall order. Also, the title says that GOOGLE spied on someone - which is not a deposition, is it?

I'm not sure how these subpoenas usually are worded specifically, but it doesn't seem like that contrived of a situation. Like, if you aren't the suspect and are ordered to hand over all devices used to communicate to , if you have a separate device you just hand the thing over. If you hand over a personal phone, they are presumably going to bump into your walled off section and have some questions. Plus, you don't have a phone, while they are working on the thing, which seems like a pain.

This is assuming you aren't in a "hand over all electronic devices" kind of situation.

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

#147

Post by VikingCoder »

neura wrote: post #129
VikingCoder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relationsh…

The argument was "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."

That is a bad argument in this case, because a regression in an internal tool is not going to be "highly embarrassing to both the company and you."

This was not a "regression" in any sense.

I welcome any other argument on this topic. But the argument presented had a flaw that I was pointing out.

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

#148

Post by colejohnson66 »

izacus wrote: post #135
colejohnson66 wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What does that have to do with accusation that Google read the messages? From the topic?

This far into the thread, it changed to justifying two phones for reasons of possible deposition. I was explaining why it’s a good idea to do that.

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

#149

Post by giantg2 »

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.

Yep, and case law dictates what is acceptable participation. Generally, using company time and infrastructure to perform concerted activities is prohibited. That's why union voting and meetings are done off the clock and off-site. Once protected by union membership, the protections tend to increase since you're not acting alone.

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

#150

Post by aNoob7000 »

cooljacob204 wrote: post #66
janesvilleseo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

With android work profiles I don't think it's that big a deal. It's isolated from my phone, my employer can't see anything outside the profile and I just disable it on weekends/vacations.

Depends on the application. We run Blackberry UEM, and good luck it seeing profiles. The application just wants to take over the entire phone doesn't matter if it is an iPhone or Android.

I walk around with two phones now, one for work and my personal one.

Post reply on HN