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

Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 772 posts

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#191

Post by ChuckMcM »

True story, a person I know who was offered a job at Google got the employment agreement (prior to arriving which was pretty standard at the time) and read that bit about "allowing Google to protect it's IP by installing a rootkit" and they red lined it to change it "May only access Google related information and no personal information."

When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would never access your personal data." To which this person said, "Great then we're agreed, all this does is make that limitation explicit.", To which HR said, "But we don't have a changed agreement", the person responded "Here is the agreement red-lined and clear, this is the only change, feel free to have legal review it."

The day proceeded until the point in the normal on-boarding process where your "mentor" would pick you up. No mentor, no employment agreement back from HR yet. Two hours later HR came back, asked for all the equipment and the badge to be returned and said, "We're sorry Google has decided we do not wish to proceed with your hire. Thanks."

I was pretty amazed by that.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#192

Post by Miner49er »

giantg2 wrote: post #187
Miner49er wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, when she was fired, this was not the case. The NLRB ruled a day or two after she went public about being fired that company communications couldn't be used for this type of thing. Before that companies had to allow it. https://www.post-gazette.com/business/career-workplace/2019/...

Ah, so this was before they amended the rule allowing communication to be restricted. I wonder what the restrictions were before. It specifically says emails were allowed. But I wonder if a person maintaining an intranet site could post a banner on it with the same message. I'm guessing not since it isn't designed for that type of communication. I'm not sure where the plugin would fall. Seems like the message didn't…

Yeah, hard to say, one could certainly make an argument that it did fall under that though. It would need to be decided in court.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#193

Post by black_puppydog »

giantg2 wrote: post #179
black_puppydog wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really hope you're not making an infrastructure cost argument here. Would be kind of laughable.

Cost wouldn't matter. The idea is that you can't use the company's resources for your personal projects, especially if that project is being used against them. So let's say you want to put up a single flyer about unionizing. You can do that in the appropriate area, such as off the company property or potentially on a bulletin board in the break room. What you can't do is type it up while on the clock and print it on…

The other way (and it seems the NLRB sees it this way too) is that she didn't materially hurt google by doing so, and on the flipside used this system to make sure that laws are known and can be followed.

This is (a bit) like google buying property around polling stations and then preventing anyone from passing through to vote. They're not hurting google by passing through, but they keep shouting "get off my land!" Why would we let them weaponize property law to prevent others from enforcing their rights vis-a-vis google?

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#194

Post by CadellFastro »

throwsofaraway wrote: post #186
CadellFastro wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Kathryn is a she. The fact that she is trans is entirely irrelevant to the story. It is not misleading to refer to her as "she," as that is her gender.

I'm just stating a fact that is true about Spiers. It's up to the people who read the story to decide if it's relevant or not, why should you be the judge of that?

You're not stating any facts. You're stating a bigoted opinion and presenting it as fact.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#195

Post by squarefoot »

cooljacob204 wrote: post #66
janesvilleseo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% agree. People laugh at me why I carry two phones but this is the main reason. If my employer needs me to have a mobile phone they are paying for separate device and plan. It’s a little silly I need to carry 2 phones around but it makes my life so much more convenient. Unknown call on my work phone guess I’ll answer. If it’s on my personal then it’s spam. Leave company, no need to update or port my number. Want t…

With android work profiles I don't think it's that big a deal. It's isolated from my phone, my employer can't see anything outside the profile and I just disable it on weekends/vacations.

Probably not applicable in OP's case. If XYZ company was my employer, the last tools I'd use to protect my data and communications would be any of XYZ's products.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#196

Post by jedberg »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #191

True story, a person I know who was offered a job at Google got the employment agreement (prior to arriving which was pretty standard at the time) and read that bit about "allowing Google to protect it's IP by installing a rootkit" and they red lined it to change it "May only access Google related information and no personal information." When they showed up HR started with "But that isn't how we use it, we would nev…

I'm not. Legal doesn't want to deal with everyone having a different employment contract. Google has always leaned towards being ok with a ton of false negatives to avoid false positives. They'd rather give up 10 good hires than make one bad one.

This is just an extension of that. They don't want any exceptions and they aren't willing to make any.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#197

Post by joshuamorton »

inetknght wrote: post #85
fishywang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Android, the work profile is supposed to solve that problem: you only add your corp account and install corp apps in work profile, and it's (at least supposed to be) isolated from your personal, default profile on your phone. This is even explicitly stated in work profile enabling flow. The spy activities described in the article is not about actual personal activities on the phone. One is looking at other's corp…

> the work profile is supposed to solve that problem: you only add your corp account and install corp apps in work profile Wait until your personal phone, with its work profile, comes into scope of a work-related deposition. You'll find just how paper thin that argument is.

Why would my personal phone come under a work-related deposition? Work emails written on my phone might be, but those are accessible without physically taking my phone.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#198

Post by andrewzah »

thrwaway2day wrote: post #188
SrslyJosh wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> political beliefs Informing employees of their legal right to organize isn't a political belief.

Would you feel the same way if she added a banner that suggested her fellow employees exercise their 2nd amendment rights?

Bad faith argument aside, informing people of the rights they do have is not really having a political stance. Those rights exist regardless of what one personally supports. Obviously, this holds true for USA's 2nd amendment rights as well as any other provisions granted by the law.

Companies have active interests in suppressing this sort of information, and put forth efforts to try and convince people that literally stating the laws of the country that one resides in is somehow pushing a political agenda.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#199

Post by kevincox »

inetknght wrote: post #85
fishywang wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Android, the work profile is supposed to solve that problem: you only add your corp account and install corp apps in work profile, and it's (at least supposed to be) isolated from your personal, default profile on your phone. This is even explicitly stated in work profile enabling flow. The spy activities described in the article is not about actual personal activities on the phone. One is looking at other's corp…

> the work profile is supposed to solve that problem: you only add your corp account and install corp apps in work profile Wait until your personal phone, with its work profile, comes into scope of a work-related deposition. You'll find just how paper thin that argument is.

If they take my phone in court I'm not too concerned. I just don't want them to be able to sniff my personal profile info without me knowing.

Re: Google illegally spied on workers before firing them, US labor board alleges

#200

Post by dylan604 »

BeetleB wrote: post #122
playcache wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. The 'work profile' feature uses app-sandbox which in effects means every app runs as a Linux type isolated UID (not to differnt to a container), there is no breach around that unless some zero day attack comes to light, which would bw patched way before acme corps IT department picks it up…

> The ony way that would be possible is by them physically taking the device off you and asking for all your pin codes / passwords. Which is likely legally allowed for a deposition. > They need you to hand it over. If its your personal device, you just say piss off, no you can't have it. Telling the courts/lawyers to piss off is not a viable option. That's not how depositions work. You might be able to get a lawyer t…

Is that how depositions work though? Being deposed means being asked questions in a very official manner by opposing counsel. During discovery, they can issue a subpoena/warrant which gives them permission to take your possessions.
Post reply on HN