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

211–220 of 772 posts

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

#211

Post by willcipriano »

MereInterest wrote: post #203
jedberg wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

Isn't it great when even something as huge and life-changing as a job is subject to a contract of adhesion with no negotiation allowed? I'm sure glad to live in such a free country with great worker rights. (Sarcasm intended.)

I have no idea how those contracts are enforceable. Quit your job, move across the country and then on your first day here are nine contracts to sign, no you can't take them home we need them now. If you don't sign you are unemployed and we want that relocation money back.

I used to ask potential employers when I got deep into interviews with them. "Is there any way I can see all the contracts I would need to sign on my first day?" and my experience is employers are very taken aback the question. How can you possibly talk remuneration when there also is some hidden contract that is part of it that you can't see until your first day?

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

#212

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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.

Fun fact: If a judge orders you to surrender your phone because it might contain evidence relating to a case, it doesn't matter how you've segregated data on your phone.

Sometimes businesses literally put some services on different physical boxes in case a court sees fit to collect the entire machine. If you had a bunch of other VMs on it... shrug.

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

#213

Post by dylan604 »

giantg2 wrote: post #137
kls wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 emerg…

I'd probably be fired if I didn't have a cell.

Then the company better being paying/providing said cell to you. If a company requires something to be used, they need to provide it.

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

#215

Post by thomasahle »

khazhoux wrote: post #189
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…

Ditto. I find it bizarre that there's people who use the same device to span pictures of their weekends and their kids, as photos of whiteboards with highly-confidential trade secrets. Tawdry jokes with friends and family alongside messages from your manager.

We use the same mind, same hands, same eyes for all of those things as well.

People view and use their phone as an extension to their body. I don't think it's possible to change that.

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

#216

Post by harha »

jedberg wrote: post #196
ChuckMcM wrote: post #191

True story, a person I know who was offered a job at Google got the employment agreement (prior to arriving which was pretty standard at the time) and read that bit about "allowing Google to protect it's IP by installing a rootkit" and they red lined it to change it "May only access Google related information and no personal information." When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would nev…

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one. This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

From what I've seen, the ratio is quite different. They'd rather make many less good hires who do as they're told than a more complicated one, even if that person were better at all the attributes. You can tell people a lot about culture and how some things are just formalities, but the contract is what remains, everything else changes with the next reorg.

From the point of view of the person at legal it makes sense (too much complexity and extra work), from higher management it makes sense (potential risk with someone who can think for themselves and won't accept everything that is handed to them), and the hiring manager will probably not pick a fight for someone who's not even on the team yet.

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

#217

Post by shemnon42 »

an_opabinia wrote: post #208
inetknght wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With android work profiles I don't think it's that big a deal. It's not a big deal... until it is. Like when your boss/coworker gets involved in a work dispute and you get dragged into a deposition.

It is utterly insane to me how confused people are in the rest of this thread. There are people getting paid like $200,000 a year, and they can't be bothered to pay a lawyer $3,000 to read their employment contract once and explain any of this to them?

What's the point of a $3000 contract review if the employer's response will be "Not changing it, sign or walk."

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

#218

Post by ezoe »

janesvilleseo wrote: post #46
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…

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…

Even better. I have zero phone. Do you really need a phone in 2020? No. I refuse to own a computer I can't write a code running on it and distribute it freely.

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

#219

Post by garmaine »

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…

> 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.

No, that is now how subpoenas and depositions work. I've been involved in a few. The judge needs a specific reason to approve inclusion of your personal device: like a record of information having been sent to it specifically or being used in a context relevant to the case at hand. And the information request will have to be specific to the case at hand, so you can just return with "There is no information on those devices relevant to the subpoena parameters" (said under oath).

If they demand your personal device anyway, because the subpoena is too broad or something, you can fight it with the judge and argue why it shouldn't be included.

If you never, ever mix personal and work then you should have no difficulty getting your personal devices excluded from a work related inquiry.

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

#220

Post by giantg2 »

black_puppydog wrote: post #193
giantg2 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 other way (and it seems the NLRB sees it this way too) is that she didn't materially hurt google by doing so, and on the flipside used this system to make sure that laws are known and can be followed. This is (a bit) like google buying property around polling stations and then preventing anyone from passing through to vote. They're not hurting google by passing through, but they keep shouting "get off my land!" W…

Did she make the change on company time? If so, her wages would be material damage. Even if made off the clock, it could still be considered material because Google needs to pay someone to fix it.

Your voting/property analogy is completely off-base. It completely ignores right of ways and public property. And if you have people actually trespassing on private property on the way to a polling place then they are in violation of the law and can be cited. I see no legal way that you can "weaponize" property law to prevent access to a polling location. Also, there's nothing stopping employees from exercising their right to concerted efforts off company time and property.

Post reply on HN