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

151–160 of 772 posts

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

#151

Post by YokoZar »

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 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?

If you read the next sentence in the linked article, the NLRB disagrees:

  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, according to The Guardian. The company said Spiers had violated security policies, a statement that hurt her reputation in the tech community. Now, the NLRB has found the firing was unlawful.

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

#152

Post by black_puppydog »

giantg2 wrote: post #141
esrauch wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really hope you're not making an infrastructure cost argument here. Would be kind of laughable.

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

#153

Post by nathanvanfleet »

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…

So you learned this the hard way but you don't have any opinion on whether it's ethical?

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

#154

Post by VikingCoder »

suifbwish wrote: post #139
VikingCoder wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it's convenient to add a corp profile to a personal phone, buy a new personal phone exclusively for that, don't put your own profile on it at all. Use Swappa or similar. Used phones are not that expensive. And you can just Hotspot from your personal phone, you don't need data for it. YMMV, but that worked well for me.

Oh yea def. Used mobile devices that are most assuredly not rooted

Fascinating. Do you have examples where someone thinks they're factory resetting an Android phone, but it turns out the device is still capable of a) running a corporate profile, and b) performing man-in-the-middle or any other attacks that "rooting" would allow? Or is this just a hypothetical?

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

#155

Post by throwaway201103 »

Macha wrote: post #79
reaperducer wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> they don't seem to care

Maybe their lives are just not tethered to their phones. I use my phone for phone calls, texting, and maps/navigation. That's about it. It would be a bit inconvenient to lose my contact list without warning, but I export those periodically in case I lose my phone.

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

#156

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by ioctrl »

monknomo wrote: post #143
koheripbal wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This was a tool designed to notify employees of security alerts, not a chat app. These are not the same. It feels like people are being purposefully dense at this point.

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

#158

Post by cromka »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #89
marshray wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Well, "nobody has the legal right to..." is restating. And to me, the "legal" is rather obviously implied.

INAL but it is your right to illegally cross the border of a Geneva convention signatory country and seek an asylum. So no, not the same.

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

#159

Post by black_puppydog »

codekansas wrote: post #96
esrauch wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 in this scenario the employee was one of a small group of people that was responsible for maintaining the cork board, and used it for their political beliefs

I find it funny how people assert that she used it for her political "beliefs" (when the message was simply informing people of their rights) but seem to take at face value Google's assertion that they acted on this because she (ab)used the infrastructure, as opposed to what she used it for.

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

#160

Post by Veelox »

whimsicalism wrote: post #111
Veelox wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. Until Trump's NLRB overturned the precedent late last year, workers had stronger protections than getting fired for a minor slip-up in the course of organizing. But today, your intuition would be…

So I am not going to update my opinion, this was legal but morally dubious on Google's part. On her part it sucks but she easily could have avoided the situation.
Post reply on HN