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

811–820 of 864 posts

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#811

Post by 1123581321 »

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.

I don't have Google experience, but you can be summarily fired for forwarding to a personal address at many companies with a security or compliance policy. You would have known this in advance, whether through training, a manual, or warnings inside the email client.

I remember an all hands where someone forwarded a relatively innocuous email to her Yahoo, once, and we all received a big reminder.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#812

Post by wpietri »

prepend wrote: post #799
wpietri wrote: post #717

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The heart of the matter is what the ethics experts see as an attempt to suppress criticism of ethical problems with Google's technology. So yes, it's very much an ethics breach. Whistleblowing need not be only about crime. It can just be about harm. [1] Indeed, with new technologies, regulation often has yet to be written, so whistleblowing can only be about harm. [1] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations…

I think that’s the disagreement. Dean said in his letter that the paper didn’t address relevant literature related to the subject that the authors weren’t aware of. To me it doesn’t seem that the reason is that it besmirched Google, but that it wasn’t complete. Also the article wasn’t an ethics breach type of article and internal so I’m not sure what the legal protection would be. I think if the employees had some ev…

You seem to be conflating ethics and legality. The two are only hazily related. And yes, of course the executives who hired ethicists to make the company look good disagree with the ethicists on what constitutes good ethics. But your notion that "No one in this scenario reported an ethics breach" is incorrect. We can't of course know the truth of the matter, because Google insists on keeping relevant facts hidden. But unless clear evidence shows otherwise, I'm going to believe the ethics professionals, not the executives whose identity and financial success are strongly bound up with making their company look good.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#813

Post by tptacek »

rayiner wrote: post #355
vorpalhex wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free speech is a moral value. The First Amendment is limited to the Government.

We also learned about “First Amendment values” in law school. This idea that there is no moral component associated with the First Amendment is a new and weird one.

One of the first things the founders did was to pass the Sedition Act of 1798, so whatever the moral component of the First Amendment is, it wasn't as clear as it's made out to be today.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#814

Post by _y5hn »

ergocoder wrote: post #787
_y5hn wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are both engaging on Twitter, and I don't see any calling out. Unless you find a good quote, that is just discussing, as adults should. It may be bad choice on them both professionally, but you're singling out one..

Because she mentioned Jeff Dean first. Then, Jeff needed to ask what this was about. Then, Jeff ended with "personal attack is not okay". Like huh? At this point, we might as well ask Jeff to tweet that the earth is round. Otherwise, we would call him a flat earther. This isn't called "engaging" when one side would assume you were racist if you didn't tweet to support their cause. The word you are looking for is stro…

Somehow the feed didn't scroll up as far as it did now. I see some other posts before those I saw first.

But that just confirms it, it's better to totally ignore any drama on Twitter, which also news organisations need to learn.

Who said what, in an online forum, is just not newsworthy.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#815

Post by KODeKarnage »

KODeKarnage wrote: post #422
sn41 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mandate of the department is ethics. Ethics is not agnostic to one's personal convictions, unlike code. People assume that because someone got fired, they "lost". Another viewpoint is that they retained their ethical integrity at great personal cost - doing so is precisely their actual job.

Yes, ethics is agnostic to one's personal convictions when it is your job. Same as how defense lawyers leave their personal sense of justice out of their jobs. Same as how sports referees don't let their childhood fandom of a particular team affect their calls. Same as how actors will be physically intimate with people the opposite of the sexual preference.

Imagine if the person in charge of AI Ethics converted to a fundamentalist Christian sect. Their ethics changed and now they think LGBT people should be discriminated against explicitly. Nobody supporting Margaret Mitchell would be defending this new convert's application of the personal ethics in their job. That proves this is merely a convenient argument on their part, not a principled one.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#816

Post by [deleted] »

andyxor wrote: post #127
chronic3802 wrote: post #97

- 135,000 Google employees - 2,000 signed a petition to support Timnit [1] - 2 employees resigned to support Timnit [2] When it comes to voting with your feet, no one actually gives a shit. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/04/thousands-petition-google-fo... [2] https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/04/tech/google-employees-quit/in...

How is Google in the wrong exactly? Gebru was fired because she gave an ultimatum to her boss threatening to resign if they don't disclose names of all reviewers who criticized her work AND blasted group emails calling for sabotage https://docs.google.com/document/d/1f2kYWDXwhzYnq8ebVtuk9CqQ... Mitchell was fired for exfiltrating thousands of files illegally and sending to external accounts https://venturebeat.com/20…

[deleted]

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#817

Post by TheCoelacanth »

cforrester wrote: post #637
simonh wrote: post #591

Earlier 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.

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.

Yes. Any policy preventing that should be illegal.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#818

Post by TheCoelacanth »

bleah1000 wrote: post #607
pseudalopex wrote: post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Except you can't do that. The problem is Google has no idea that this is where the documents/e-mails went. All they can see is that a large number of documents and e-mails were sent outside of Google. I can't imagine Google would say, well it's okay if you take the law into your own hands. Any lawyer should be able to send a note telling Google to preserve the files for potential litigation. And given that she seems…

If emails are taken out of context, then Google is free to provide context.

An employee's working conditions are not company secrets. They have a legal right to discuss them.

Re: Margaret Mitchell fired from Google

#819

Post by TheCoelacanth »

dbbk wrote: post #619
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...

> It’s pretty cool we can just take Google at it’s word Err... yes? Google is an employer which has the right to terminate employees as it wants. It doesn't owe you an explanation.

And we don't owe them the benefit of the doubt if they don't care to explain themselves.
Post reply on HN