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

161–170 of 772 posts

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

#161

Post by seppin »

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 wish there was a cal sync different from mail and the rest. Having to login to a secure device to check meetings for the next morning in an annoying ritual.

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

#162

Post by renewiltord »

anonacct38 wrote: post #26
vorpalhex wrote: post #2

That headline does not match the article contents. That is definitely the headline from the article, but it simply repeats the claim and doesn't even link to the complaint or provide ANY details. > Spiers was fired after she created a pop-up for Google employees visiting the IRI Consultants website. Didn't she inject code into an unrelated internal extension? That sounds like a legit security issue no matter how just…

> 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…

Got to be honest. If the security team is all like "Install this extension. It'll help you with security" and then it's gonna pop up all sorts of crap, I'm going to uninstall your shitty extension and after that I'm going to treat any software from this so-called 'security' team as some Bonzibuddy crap.

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

#163

Post by giantg2 »

anonymousDan wrote: post #125
giantg2 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not all anti-union stuff is illegal. Hiring a law firm to consult on employee management and unionization would not be illegal. If anything, they should be learning the correct and legal actions that they can take based on the consultant's recommendations.

Not to mention, the comment the plugin displayed wasn't saying anything against illegal actions, but rather stating that concerted activities are protected. I don't see how that has any bearing on the use of a law firm's website.

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

#164

Post by YokoZar »

jordache wrote: post #70

Man! What did she expect, treading into unionization topics on company systems?

She probably expected her legal rights under the National Labor Relations Act to be protected, as Google has been punished by the NLRB on many occasions, including having to issue a notice to all employees notifying them of these legal rights.

This finding by the NLRB is that Google has yet again violated those rights.

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

#165

Post by zobzu »

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…

For what it's worth your comment is technically wrong and misleading - really, it's FUD.

Android is very specific about company-owned vs personally-owned phones. Personally-owned lets you setup devices with a work profile where very little non-work data is available to the employer. They don't know your personal apps, they dont know your IP address, and they dont know where these apps go (ie no personal network logs). They have no access to these either.

Even for company-owned devices (which require a specific setup, if you bring in your own device that means factory reset and things like hitting 7x the white screen on the first new setup page), the mobile device management api doesn't give you all that much. There's no remote access/rootkit, you can't see private messages (they can see messages you send over a work chat app they own, so if its google hangout chat f.e., by looking at the hangout service itself)

Here are the different modes: https://developers.google.com/android/work/terminology and you can follow the API links to see what they do if you want to verify what I just wrote.

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

#166

Post by ckocagil »

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.

Laws are political.

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

#167

Post by outworlder »

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 isn't that obstruction of justice and/or contempt of court?

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

#168

Post by throwsofaraway »

We all keep saying "she" to refer to Kathryn Spiers. Spiers is a trans person. I think it's relevant to mention this as a fact, as I find it misleading (my personal belief) to keep referring to Spiers as "she" in HN comments. I think some commenters wouldn't have done so if they were aware that Spiers is a trans person. Not a big deal, of course, but I know this type of factual information gets censored out quite a lot, so I just wanted to shine some light on it.

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

#169

Post by SrslyJosh »

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

> political beliefs

Informing employees of their legal right to organize isn't a political belief.

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

#170

Post by black_puppydog »

libria wrote: post #30
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.

Substituting your equivalence: > She used an internal security tool to push the law Even for messages I agreed with, I would still find this a questionable activity and disruptive as an employee.

You find it questionable and disruptive that someone would encourage people to know and enforce the law? How very peculiar.

Seems like if that's the status quo, it should be disrupted.

Post reply on HN