Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#541

Post by bitcharmer »

choppaface wrote: post #518
aerosmile wrote: post #261

You will learn a lot about Margaret Mitchell's firing by simply reading this piece she shared publicly on Twitter: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERi2crDToYhYjEjxRoOzO-uO... A few punchlines: "Every moment where Jeff Dean and Megan Kacholia do not take responsibility for their actions is another moment where the company as a whole stands by silently as if to intentionally send the horrifying message that Dr. Geb…

Jeff Dean is getting paid two orders of magnitude more and yet he let the fire burn for several months before things went critical. Everybody in this story is making too much money, but some way way way more than others.

How do you know Jeff Dean's salary?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#542

Post by pseudalopex »

cornel_io wrote: post #515
marricks wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or this group was a thorn in their side and thousands of employees are disgusted by their actions and they want to bury this as effectively as possibly. They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers. Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?

Accusing a fired employee in such a public way of stealing documents could be argued to be blowing up her career forever. That's maybr 20 years at let's say 600k/year, ballpark what someone her level was making there (maybe even low, sheay have been L7+). That's a chunky enough defamation suit that it shouldn't be hard to find a really solid firm to defend you on spec, and it'd be worth enough that it would be pretty…

It wouldn't be the first time Google miscalculated legal risk.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#543

Post by bg24 »

belltaco wrote: post #409
crazygringo wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so vague it's hard to draw any conclusion without specifics. "Exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents" could be nefariously downloading proprietary research for personal gain... or innocently downloading a Slides presentation to your personal phone as a PDF in preparation for a client meeting in case it's impossible to connect to their Wi-Fi. Or saving e-mail communications with your manager in…

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

An email activity anomaly detection will flag it immediately. That might have triggered the investigation.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#544

Post by bitcharmer »

choppaface wrote: post #172
sillysaurusx wrote: post #94

It's pretty important to get this story straight: She moved files when she wasn't supposed to. This seems like a pretty standard firing. People are already claiming on twitter that Google is assaulting ethical AI, and I just don't see it. Google did not immediately comment on those claims. Its statement said of Mitchell: “We confirmed that there were multiple violations of our code of conduct, as well as of our secur…

It's pretty important to get it straight: what files did she move and why? So far it appears she did NOT do an Anthony Levandowski and steal IP. In particular Google has said zero about the actual dollar value of those files, or cited any damages from the movement of the files. It appears much more likely she was talking to a lawyer, which is a perfectly legal thing to do, and probably pretty wise given Google's maxi…

It doesn't matter what files she moved and why. What matters is they were internal Google documents and exfiltrating sensitive contents that you don't own is a fireable offence in any corporation. She should have known better.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#545

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #469
marricks wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word after a 5 week investigation with literally no details coming out. Google also decided to drop this bombshell on a Friday the same day they are announcing a rebranded ethics team. It’s clear they wanted to bury this story and the leaders of the old team. I for one don’t plan to in any way give Google the benefit of the doubt here...

1. Lying about why an employee fired in an easily verified way is a huge unforced error. We can probably assume Google is not that incompetent. 2. She hasn't denied the accusations.

Exfiltration could just mean forwarding emails to herself or her lawyer.

Any lawyer would tell her not to comment on the accusations. Especially before she was fired.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#546

Post by JamesBarney »

JamesBarney wrote: post #531
monocasa wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was work…

> > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...

Next line

> On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#547

Post by pseudalopex »

JamesBarney wrote: post #546
JamesBarney wrote: post #531

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was work…

> > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged... Next line > On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit

There wasn't an announced leaving date.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#548

Post by pseudalopex »

pseudalopex wrote: post #536
belltaco wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to an Axios scoop from Jan, she was running a script to find emails in her Inbox related to Gebru and sending thousands of files "to multiple external parties". https://i.imgur.com/fDV9kKV.png

The image doesn't say anything about a script or Gebru. "multiple external accounts" could mean her own and her lawyer's.

This Axios article has the claim from an unnamed source.[1]

[1] https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-is-investigating-the-acti...

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#549

Post by flippinburgers »

gowld wrote: post #43
rsj_hn wrote: post #15

>Unfireable save for clear violations of policies such as sexual harassment I would take a look at (and consider donating to) FIRE to understand the current state of academic freedom in universities. https://www.thefire.org/news-and-media/ Just to give two examples: Bret Weinstein was fired from Evergreen for not participating in a no-white-people-on-campus day (and he was also subject to credible death threats, requ…

Your description of Bret Weinstein and Evergreen is substantially inaccurate, perhaps because you read Bret Weinstein's dishonest description of it (linked below). There was no "no-white-people-on-campus" day. There was an optional off-campus field trip for a seminar aimed at people living with a white perspective. Bret Weinstein was not fired. He resigned with $500K severance as part of a settlement agreement arisin…

The idea of a no fill-in-the-skin-color day is unbelievably racist.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#550

Post by JamesBarney »

pseudalopex wrote: post #545
JamesBarney wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Lying about why an employee fired in an easily verified way is a huge unforced error. We can probably assume Google is not that incompetent. 2. She hasn't denied the accusations.

Exfiltration could just mean forwarding emails to herself or her lawyer. Any lawyer would tell her not to comment on the accusations. Especially before she was fired.

And any lawyer would also tell Google not to blatantly lie about easily verifiable facts around the firing.
Post reply on HN