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

661–670 of 772 posts

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

#661

Post by knorker »

drewbug01 wrote: post #538
knorker wrote: post #373

What exactly did Google do? I can't find it. Do note that one of the fired people installed an web interceptor onto all employee browsers, injecting content when certain websites were visited. Basically installed malware in the workplace. I cannot think of anything less ethical to do when gives such access. If they were my coworker I would never be able to trust them with access to anything ever again. To abuse such…

This isn’t really what happened, you know. I think this is the “game of telephone” effect in action. It was a configuration change to an extension already installed by google onto employee computers. Hardly injecting malware.

I know. I think what I said is a fair description.

I boggles the mind how someone could think this is ethical, and can defend this.

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

#662

Post by drstewart »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #507
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A union would mean the ability to negotiate as a group rather than just taking whatever Google decided to offer us. One of the highest salaries on the planet, and they still have several competitors? Yeah, this is very short sighted. The system works, and tech employees need unions for salary negotiations less than nearly everybody. This doesn’t end how you hope, and just reeks of unearned entitlement. If you don’t…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_Labor how about how you learn some labor history, and how organization efforts spearheaded by the most privileged workers, however odious in some respect, did beget trends good for all.

Here's some more labor history for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa

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

#663

Post by dodobirdlord »

danShumway wrote: post #612
mleonhard wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the person didn't really want the job. If they wanted it, they could have just gotten a company phone and laptop, used them only for work, and kept them in the office. Company devices are occasionally stolen for their internal data: emails, docs, code, and config. This data can be useful to investors and competitors. Companies hire expensive people to limit the amount of data exposed in theft incidents. Under…

> When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would never access your personal data." So, what, was HR lying? More to the point, Google shouldn't be putting critical business information on personal devices, that's a security risk. If they're that worried about it, they should be issuing every employee a separate phone. "We don't trust you enough to have your own device without a rootkit, bu…

Sure, you could interpret it as HR lying. Frequently when people speak using natural languages it is possible to interpret something in ways other than what were meant. It's clear that the HR person meant that Google's rootkit-enabled security software would make a good faith effort not to intrude on personal data. Then the person in the story proposed changing the contract wording to "May only access Google related information and no personal information." This no doubt got forwarded on to a lawyer who said "No can do, that's a legal promise that the security software is 100% bug-free." That would also require wading into the murk of what is "personal data" and what is "Google related information". Does putting your commute schedule on your personal calendar make your personal calendar "Google related"? Are chat messages in which you sexually harass your coworker "personal information"? No lawyer is ever going to sign off on this.

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

#664

Post by renewiltord »

AshWolfy wrote: post #597
renewiltord wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be allowed to unionize but I'll oppose it at every front. Because mass power means mass power that can be turned against me. 2016 taught me something. There are a large contingent of anti-immigrants out there. Should you allow the creation of a mob, a day will come when the populists will take control of it. In moments, the mob can break generations of integration. The best defence against it is prevent…

Mobs are a fact of life, you can either live in denial, or you can try and make things better

Well, right now all tech worker organization is crappy right now. The mob dissipates its energy in online rage about whiteboard interviews and hatred of foreigners. That kind of mob I like. Oderunt et metuunt, as one might most hope for. And they are powerless in their rage.

With sufficient work they can be kept like that. Either at peace or powerlessly angry.

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

#665

Post by dodobirdlord »

soup10 wrote: post #649
nmfisher wrote: post #614

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably the most overlooked comment here. I'm guessing that Google just DGAF about any individual employee. They're not short of candidates, so why waste even a tiny amount of time customizing their contract terms when they can just revoke it and move to the next in line.

That's not actually what happened, Google, much like any company wants to hire people that are "good team players" "will be loyal to the company", "don't cause trouble", and "show gratitude for the opportunity given to them". So either you play the game or you have enough leverage to get special treatment(or you work somewhere else). They want good corporate drones, not individualists that protest when privacy rights…

There's also the option to just not install corporate apps on your personal device.

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

#666

Post by renewiltord »

ipsum2 wrote: post #651
renewiltord wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google or other tech companies don't allow you disable security extensions, otherwise that would defeat the purpose. It's installed by default.

Right but they also know how I feel about them so they know that I'll ignore all their messages after they've Bonzibuddied me for their pet crap. Then they'll know they've desecuritified that piece of their strategy. It will be ignored by all.

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

#667

Post by dodobirdlord »

silverpepsi wrote: post #308
Broken_Hippo wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like he didn't just ask for a contract change: He simply crossed it out and expected them to take it. I'm honestly surprised people do that. I always go with the assumption that a job offer comes with the implication that you agree to the legal stuff as you are signing it: If you don't, you have refused the job. If you don't agree to something that has been updated, you have quit. The only thing that might…

Haven't you ever thought it odd that the document is entirely authored on one end and hence entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party? From this perspective, a single deletion is a pathic barely countable concession at best. Imagine B2B contracts were written this way...whatever company has the bigger ego authors every last word and walks away the moment a detail is questioned. You could only aff…

> entirely nothing but a list of terms advantageous to one party

The obvious counterpoint is that usually a job offer involves getting paid.

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

#668

Post by dodobirdlord »

munk-a wrote: post #291
qmarchi wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, as a Google employee, they do. If you don't want to run corp software, you can easily just request a corporate phone and that's that.

It is unfortunate (and a reflection of the power imbalance in US employment) that Google doesn't simply offer a corporate phone as a matter of practice - it benefits both the employee and the employer in the long run (with dishonest actions put aside).

It's nice not having a corporate phone. Nobody can message you during off-hours without taking the extreme step of calling you at your personal number (which in the modern day is basically unthinkable).

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

#669

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#670

Post by ajmadesc »

KvanteKat wrote: post #650
missedthecue wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why this is wrong but labor unions are encouraged. If the sellers of labor can cartelize to maximize income, why shouldn't the buyers of labor be able to cartelize to minimize expenses? There is no logically consistent excuse. Better yet, why isn't all cartelization prohibited?

I mean, isn't that (one of) the point(s) of the corporation as a legal entity: to allow people with capital assets and a joint enterprise in mind to coordinate their resources and act as a single entity for the purposes of pursuing that enterprise [edit: which of course includes purchasing labor in all but the smallest undertakings]. One of the original motivating theories behind the drive for labor unions organized…

IIRC a group of people had to be given permission to 'incorporate' under a charter with clear production objective(end condition) until mid-late the 19th century
Post reply on HN