Margaret Mitchell fired from Google • Hacker News Board

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#501

Post by bitcharmer » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 4:59 AM UTC

supergirl wrote: post #339

andyxor wrote: post #6

Google response (from Jan): "Our security systems automatically lock an employee’s corporate account when they detect that the account is at risk of compromise due to credential problems or when an automated rule involving the handling of sensitive data has been triggered. In this instance, yesterday our systems detected that an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external account…

how would this system detect sharing with external accounts? sounds like they put some words together to make it sound like it’s all standardized and automated and not result of human actions

You are wrong.

All outgoing email is being scanned for sensitive information in plain text or attachments. This is standard practice in every corporation and something you are being warned about when being on-boarded as a new-joiner.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#502

Post by bitcharmer » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

xnx wrote: post #73

Seems like this might relate to the reshuffling of AI organization at Google: https://blog.google/technology/ai/marian-croak-responsible-a... From a complete outsider, this seems like a smart shift toward more mature leadership.

Yes, less drama/political activism and more professionalism is probably going to work out better than hiring people like Gebru or Mitchell.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#503

Post by skinkestek » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:02 AM UTC

pseudalopex wrote: post #472

grumple wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Jews (like me) will eat ham and happily celebrate at your Christmas party though. You’ll never please everyone.

Would you celebrate any less happily if the holiday party had kosher food?

Not a jew but an "observant christian":

I'd in fact in many cases be less happy if they took away things from my colleagues to please me.

I don't eat blood or strangled meat but don't mess up other people's celebrations and blame it on me.

As long as I'm not forced to be part of it just give me something else that I like and I'm happy.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#504

Post by bitcharmer » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:05 AM UTC

scintill76 wrote: post #331

renewiltord wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have ham at Christmas. Now I've got this weird feeling I've been doing something that's a faux pas but I can't find a reference on the Internet anywhere. Why will people complain about the ham sandwiches?

Maybe it’s that some people don’t eat ham for religion and some don’t celebrate Christmas?

Well, isn't the simplest solution for them to not eat the ham sandwich or not attend a Christmas party if it's such a big problem for them?

There will always be someone offended by anything you do. I'm atheist and have no problem celebrating Christmas or Diwali or whatever with my colleagues from work. I guess it entirely depends on the type of person you are.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#505

Post by jzer0cool » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:08 AM UTC

Ethical.

Anyone experienced the following?

Working on product, features, etc., may potentially be unethical to end-users. May introduce unknown biases, pose privacy issue, gray areas, to end-users, security and other related similar topics.

Speak out of such issue to only find an adverse reaction. Timely delivery of the product is more important.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#506

Post by tdeck » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:09 AM UTC

prepend wrote: post #432

monocasa wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or they think that the PR win for going to the press early is worth more than the lawsuits. Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.

Unlikely I think as if they weren’t iron clad, they would muffle up and prepare for the wrongful termination lawsuit that will only be greater if they lie about the departure. Since a lie would be slander, damage reputation and lead to lots more money. I think them issuing this statement means they feel confident in their defense. It also being so specific seems more credible since that’s something to easy to verify…

A wrongful termination lawsuit will drag on for years, and won't conclude until the discontent surrounding this particular issue has dissipated.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#507

Post by tdeck » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #488

bryan0 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Cut and dry”? Given how google fired a previous AI ethicist in an entirely misleading way (“We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google”), it would be naive to take google at their word here.

It wasn't very misleading. Giving an ultimatum on threat of resignation is more or less entails giving your resignation if the company doesn't accept. My understanding is that the conversation more or less went: Gebru: "Don't make me retract the paper and give me the names of the reviewers or I'll resign." Google: "We're not doing that. We accept and respect your decision to resign from Google."

Google has a specific process for resigning and writing a resignation letter. Saying "if you don't do this let's talk about my end date" isn't it. When the company decides you're not working there anymore and tells you so, it's a firing. That shouldn't be hard to grasp.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#508

Post by skinkestek » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

duckfang wrote: post #99

At the same time, Google unveiled a "Black owned businesses near me" on Google Maps. How has that been received? We need look no further than Twitter: (the Tl;Dr. racists are using this to lower all ratings of these Black owned businesses) https://twitter.com/dmetaxak/status/1362856231212212224 Google recently added a feature allowing users to search for "Black-owned businesses near you". They're advertising it all o…

When will corporate America learn?

Keeping lists of people who have special traits should be kept to an absolute minimum. Just ask the Dutch (good people got punished and killed trying to destroy the official registers of Dutch jews as it became clear the Nazis sought them.)

Pointing out the differences between people isn't going to help!

In the place I grew up in Europe there were almost no foreigners. But in summer holidays we lived next to a really black family at a camp site for years. Their dad were friends with my dad and well, that was it. They were humans like the rest of us.

Today it is almost like it is scarier to meet people from other cultures.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#509

Post by hitekker » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:12 AM UTC

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #319

kamranjon wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's exactly what happened. From my understanding she was backing up emails that served as evidence to support the claim that Google had treated Timnit Gebru unfairly during their termination. Not sure where that legally falls but I wouldn't exactly paint it in the light you did here.

The legal way to handle that is for Dr. Gebru to sue Google and get the emails through discovery. (If Google didn't do anything that Gebru can/is willing to sue over, well, she doesn't have any legal right to the emails.) Exfiltrating confidential documents will get you fired, and saying you did it to assist a friend in badmouthing your employer on Twitter is not going to help matters.

The assumption that corporations, not courts, decide legality seems inane to me. The company you worship could commit a crime and then engage in a cover up to destroy all evidence before discovery could occur. The easiest, recent example is Ebay:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/technology/ebay-cockroach...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#510

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Sat, Feb 20, 2021, 5:15 AM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #509

asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The legal way to handle that is for Dr. Gebru to sue Google and get the emails through discovery. (If Google didn't do anything that Gebru can/is willing to sue over, well, she doesn't have any legal right to the emails.) Exfiltrating confidential documents will get you fired, and saying you did it to assist a friend in badmouthing your employer on Twitter is not going to help matters.

The assumption that corporations, not courts, decide legality seems inane to me. The company you worship could commit a crime and then engage in a cover up to destroy all evidence before discovery could occur. The easiest, recent example is Ebay: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/26/technology/ebay-cockroach...

Sorry, by legal, I meant, "within the terms of your employment agreement."