Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were superintelligent and hyperaware, how would you question it?
...are you the AI?
No?
Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
701–710 of 864 posts
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#702Earlier 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.
> legal way to handle that is for Dr. Gebru to sue Google and get the emails through discovery The not-quite-legal but defensible way might also involve openly forwarding those emails to her lawyer. Sending them anywhere else removes the shadow of doubt one needs when strategically but willfully violating a contract.
It's quite legal in some jurisdictions.
Multiple external accounts could mean her lawyer's account and her own. Or 2 accounts at her lawyer's firm. So we don't know if she sent them anywhere else.
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
The original claim was that Google uses their political power to push leftish views and censor right/far right views, so that particular claim is not consistent
You can push left wing views while still having more people choose right wing recommendations. There's a kind of feedback loop which pushes people to different viewpoints.
Different politics can correlate with different web usage. Either directly, e.g. because of different type of censorship on different websites, or indirectly e.g. because politics correlates with social class, and social class correlates with web usage.
So maybe YouTube is relatively more popular with right wing, and Twitter with left wing... which would make the average YouTube user more right-wing than the average of the population (and the average Twitter user more left-wing that the average of the population).
It could even be some statistical artifact. Maybe the audience is divided 50:50, but e.g. left-wing users are more likely to produce their own videos. That would mean that right-wing videos have on average more views per video.
It could be an artifact of censorship itself: suppose that e.g. extreme right-wing is 5% of population, and they produce 5% of videos. But half of those videos are removed by YouTube. If they keep using the same search terms, the surviving videos will have twice more views per video. And if then YouTube moderators freak out and delete half of those, the views of the remaining half will double again, feeding a spiral of hysteric moderation and extreme popularity of the few surviving fringe videos. (And it doesn't help if the content-agnostic algorithm predicts -- correctly -- that the popularity of these videos is likely to skyrocket.)
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
> all outgoing email And of course this same applies to file uploads. Again, this is standard practice in any company with IT security.
> an account had exfiltrated thousands of files and shared them with multiple external accounts I'm just questioning why she would email to multiple external accounts directly from her corp email instead of saving to 1 personal account and then sharing from there, undetectable, many times. And yes, they would still have detected the 1 email but I'm questioning the accuracy of this explanation; sounds partly made up t…
Multiple external accounts could mean her lawyer's account and her own. Or 2 lawyers' accounts. The latter would help show she didn't distribute the files to anyone else.
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you are right, I was working in Switzerland, not in US. What I remember clearly though is that Google's training contained material about how I am allowed to socialize with coworkers outside work, which may be allowed in the US, but it was clearly against the Swiss constitution (my job security was more important to me than speaking up about this though)
Haha, what are you talking about? Are you saying Swiss employees are legally not allowed to socialise with work colleagues? Do you honestly think this happens in practice?
No, the opposite. Google aren't allowed to tell you how you can socialize with your colleagues outside of work
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
The image doesn't say anything about a script or Gebru. "multiple external accounts" could mean her own and her lawyer's.
Neither of which is acceptable. If she or her lawyers want their own copies of emails outside the company, they can apply to a court.
Legal counsel is a common exception to NDAs. Different jurisdictions have different specific rules.
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#707Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither of which is acceptable. If she or her lawyers want their own copies of emails outside the company, they can apply to a court.
So,if you are being abused by your boss via email, you can't give the evidence to a lawyer, but first have to apply for a court order without showing any evidence in order to get the evidence? I think this is unlikely to be the law, and if it is, it shouldn't be.
Different jurisdictions have different rules. But legal counsel is a common exception to NDAs.
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
From both a practical and ethical point of view, I find it more than acceptable to retain copies of email correspondence one is participating in, and to share that correspondence with one's legal representation. The alternative puts too much power in corporate hands.
I can understand maybe showing an email or several perhaps to a lawyer, a court might well consider that reasonable even if it's a technical violation, or just give a warning. It's a matter of proportionality. Breaking a speed limit by a few mph won't get you banned from driving. This is completely different though, it was an automated query trawling and exfiltrating vast quantities of mail threads.
An unidentified source alleged she used a script to find messages. That doesn't mean she copied the messages without reviewing them.[1]
[1] https://www.axios.com/scoop-google-is-investigating-the-acti...
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#709Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean multiple external parties could mean two parties and technically not be a lie. It could also be multiple external services that she has an account at and still not technically be a lie. I guess someone could not be specifying more clearly how nefarious the goings on because of legal reasons, but it could also be that they're not specifying more clearly because then everyone would make the pffft noise and point…
I think it's the "external" part of the phrase that's a problem, not the "multiple". She could've sent it to one external party and that still may have been a fire-able offense. (Of course, this depends on what she was sending, if it was really protected information, and who she was sending it to. If she was sending evidence of criminal wrongdoing on the part of Google to her lawyer or a government official, then I d…
An external party could be her own email account at a different service.
Probably because she was worried that something exactly like this would happen.
Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
From both a practical and ethical point of view, I find it more than acceptable to retain copies of email correspondence one is participating in, and to share that correspondence with one's legal representation. The alternative puts too much power in corporate hands.
I can understand maybe showing an email or several perhaps to a lawyer, a court might well consider that reasonable even if it's a technical violation, or just give a warning. It's a matter of proportionality. Breaking a speed limit by a few mph won't get you banned from driving. This is completely different though, it was an automated query trawling and exfiltrating vast quantities of mail threads.
All of which she was already involved in. It’s not like she didn’t have the info already.