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

171–180 of 772 posts

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

#171

Post by Miner49er »

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.

Actually, when she was fired, this was not the case. The NLRB ruled a day or two after she went public about being fired that company communications couldn't be used for this type of thing. Before that companies had to allow it.

https://www.post-gazette.com/business/career-workplace/2019/...

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

zobzu wrote: post #165
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)…

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by crocodiletears »

shkkmo wrote: post #138
crocodiletears wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why this was flagged. It's moderately tangential, but within the variance I'd expect from a HN discussion. It's substantial enough to chew on. If it's about 'his orangeness', I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone on a forum predomenantly frequented by tech workers and west-coastals to be able to say Trump's name without spitting, and outside of that it's a fairly reasonable description current…

I think it is entirely reasonable to expect civility. If you can't mention someone's name and remain civil, you should refrain from discussing that individual on this site.

Only really works if he topic is fully irrelevant within domain of the discussion.

Personally, I consider the compulsion many people have to put a pound of contempt into every ounce of contrition they grant Trump's administration to be childish, and honestly quite alarming for its ubiquity.

But if we want to get to a point where people who vociferously oppose trump are willing to tolerate reasoned dialogues considering the administration's legacy, I think collectively loosening our expectations around tone for comments that are otherwise well thought out and cut against the communal grain for a bit could help fix things.

"Fuck that guy, but he's occasionally right for the wrong reasons" is a significant improvement on "Fuck that guy, always and don't question it".

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

#174

Post by black_puppydog »

throwsofaraway wrote: post #168

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 l…

Really? You're gonna go there? The fact you made a throwaway for this tells me you know exactly that this has no bearing whatsoever on the case. If it did, it would just add to the scandal.

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

#175

Post by ddingus »

brewdad wrote: post #32
buzzerbetrayed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very obviously NOT what they are suggesting. They are suggesting you should "Please refrain from insults", as is clearly stated in their comment. Insult != Criticism.

Is it an insult if it is factually accurate?

Stating the fact is not the same thing as stating an insult.

Trump is more orange than just about all people.

That's a fact.

"His Orangeness" actually does the following:

Implies egregiously sized ego

Implies royalty

Associates that to the orange fact.

The connotations associated with "His" are not complementary.

Etc...

Burying a fact amidst snark, then ignoring the snark is a sleight of hand others find easy to see as well, which is how I saw your query.

Actually making facts the priority is a lot more healthy and productive, and there is a bonus!

When we do that, we can also be perfectly reasonable and also point out that any offense taken isn't on us. Sometimes facts are painful, right?

These are the things people are trying to get at so the discussion is higher value.

That's my take for what it's worth.

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

#176

Post by zobzu »

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?

They claim Google spied on Spiers and did something illegal. This might be the case, but they don't disclose what they exactly did. Maybe we'll know later on.

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

#177

Post by sershe »

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…

Seeing how well corporate IT apps work on my work laptop (slowness, constant updates and general clunkiness), the main reason I'd never install one on my phone is that I'm afraid they'll make the phone completely unusable - not thru malice, but thru sheer incompetence.

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

#178

Post by [deleted] »

icelancer wrote: post #119
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…

>> 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."

[deleted]

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

#179

Post by giantg2 »

black_puppydog wrote: post #152
giantg2 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...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.

Cost wouldn't matter. The idea is that you can't use the company's resources for your personal projects, especially if that project is being used against them. So let's say you want to put up a single flyer about unionizing. You can do that in the appropriate area, such as off the company property or potentially on a bulletin board in the break room. What you can't do is type it up while on the clock and print it on the company's printer.

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

#180

Post by ChuckMcM »

zobzu wrote: post #165
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)…

Except that in the Employment Agreement that Google made me sign when I worked there (I don't know if it is still like this) Google specifically called out that they reserve the right to rootkit your personal devices that access "Google's corporate information" (basically that means accessing your work email because you needed to use your corp laptop if you wanted to access the internal network)

But I agree that if they were talking about the "Android" feature, an employer could choose not to go that route.

Post reply on HN