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

801–810 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#801

Post by prepend »

tdeck wrote: post #506
prepend wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Certainly, but that’s monetary damages.

I don’t think this matters from a PR perspective and millions later vs whatever now is hard arithmetic.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#802

Post by GavinMcG »

throwaway3699 wrote: post #783
GavinMcG wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLK named "the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice" as "the great stumbling block in [the] stride toward justice." I'm not expanding a thing.

That's still incorrect. I'm happy for there to be disruptions in order to get justice. What I don't agree with is that I'm somehow complicit for society's problems be virtue of being born into it. Or would you be prepared to charge your children with that burden too?

If they are born into society, grow up, look around, and do nothing? Yes. It isn't enough to not actively hate other people.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#803

Post by choppaface »

jahewson wrote: post #767
choppaface wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just so everyone knows, in CA your assertions are false. CA courts have ruled that if a company protects documents or email systems then they earn the status of a trade secret. Theft of trade secrets is a felony criminal offence in CA. Do I think the CA AG is going to charge her? Unlikely. But there’s no need to demonstrate damages here like in a civil suit. Illegally exfiltrating documents to your lawyer is also, il…

Just so everybody knows, sexual coercion is a criminal offense and yet Google certainly didn’t pursue Andy Rubin for that, actually they gave him a $90m severance.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/25/18023364/google-andy-rub...

In short, don’t abuse coworkers sexually. It’s a crime.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#804

Post by knorker »

monocasa wrote: post #660
knorker wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a theory. If she doesn't sue then we can assume that's not what happened. If she does sue, then it'll probably still be a secret settlement, so we won't know. :-( Personally i don't believe this theory. Because it's so easy to counter what google said, then, and google's lawyers are not that stupid.

Google has already publicly misrepresented facts in this saga.

oh? specifically?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#805

Post by tjalfi »

saalweachter wrote: post #227
kristianc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’d have to think there was some middle ground between investigating and adding ethical accountability to AI programs and exfiltrating thousands of sensitive files.

Tangential anecdote. I was reading a book about dry stone bridges, and one of the bridges featured was built across a stream in a protected watershed. The builder said he was surprised the permit for it was approved, he told the client to expect it to be rejected. Talking to the government bureaucrats & scientists, he found out that they had to approve a permit every now and then. Not just because of political reason…

This sounds like an interesting read, what's the title of the book?

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#806

Post by ma2rten »

xiphias2 wrote: post #350
asdfasgasdgasdg wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What exactly did this training say? I'm just a little suspicious that Google was saying you couldn't socialize with friends outside the office, since that's unenforceable, not in their interests, and also deeply stupid.

I didn't write that that we couldn't, it was about how we could. For example we shouldn't tell a coworker that he/she's pretty, shouldn't get drunk together, and a lot of behaviour that is considered flirting and getting to know eachother in Switzerland. In US behaviour outside Google is handled by the company as well, but in Switzerland there are very strict privacy laws and culture that forbid companies to control…

I work at Google in California. Unless you have completely different trainings, I don't think your characterization is accurate. For one it doesn't say at all that you should not get drunk together. In fact there are many company events where alcohol is served and some teams keep a stash of liquor in the office.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#807

Post by throwaway19937 »

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

> sounds like they put some words together to make it sound like it’s all standardized and automated and not result of human actions

Part of my job is administering a system for detecting unauthorized sharing, exporting, or printing. It has thresholds and a rules-based engine for specifying what behavior should trigger alerts. Google's system is probably custom but there are definitely products on the market for this sort of thing.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#808

Post by katbyte »

Aeolun wrote: post #709
ALittleLight wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

that's still a breach of policy and of questionable legality? your company email inbox is the companies not your own.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#809

Post by katbyte »

Cacti wrote: post #727
systemvoltage wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, Timrit is spinning up more choas on Twitter: https://twitter.com/timnitGebru/status/1362886704361791488 At this point, I am moving past all this drama. This corporate soap opera televised on Twitter needs to cease. If the person fired thinks that it was illegal, they should settle this in the court with Google. A company can fire anyone for any reason that's legal just the way you can leave the company for…

> To the VPs at Google, I pity you. Wow, sounds like a real pleasant personality. Jesus what is this third grade.

you should read the e-mail she sent out at google before her resignation/firing/departure - hard to believe she was a manager.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#810

Post by wpietri »

JamesBarney wrote: post #782
wpietri wrote: post #715

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In which case, you see yourself not as a professional, but as a minion. That's fine, but understand that it works differently for other people. Consider a doctor, for example. A hospital can hire them and give them orders. But they see themselves as having a duty to the patient and to society. If something isn't right, they will surely say so internally first. But if harm continues, they absolutely will raise a rucku…

It's weird that use the term and minion and professional in a way such that the farther you go up the org chart the more "minion like and unprofessional" they get. With the CEO probably being the most minion like and least profressional.

Not at all. The CEO isn't doing whatever the powerful tell him. Neither are high-level execs. See Locke and Spender's "Confronting Mangerialism" for a good breakdown of the game they're playing.

Its line workers, and maybe first-level managers that are the most minion-like, the ones who most believe that their job is to follow orders make their boss look good, without regard to impact, value, or ethics.

Post reply on HN