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

Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 358 posts

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#321

Post by unprepare »

dragonwriter wrote: post #162
08-15 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here Wait, what? In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded!

> In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? This is absolutely the case with at-will employment, and maybe even with an executive or officer directly involved in a case even without that (and an executive likely has a contract that puts them under something other than simple at-will terms.) > That doesn't sound right... ple…

To me it sounds like you are saying no, an employer cannot compel you to give them your personal information, but that they can terminate your employment if you refuse to hand it over

is that what you meant? I think 08-15's concern was more along the lines of an employer having the ability to demand someone to give up their personal information without their consent.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#322

Post by mti »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #129
08-15 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here Wait, what? In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? That doesn't sound right... please, somebody tell me the US judicial system isn't that retarded!

I mean, can't it? California is an "at-will" employment state, right? They could presumably fire an employee for refusing to straight up burn their own house down.

That's what we call a "fired if you do, fired if you don't" kind of situation.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#323

Post by alok-g »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #182
defen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

> What if Levandowski has the files on his home > computer or something but they never touched Uber's > system? One of the things that surprised me about Google's employee agreement was that by signing it, the employee gives permission to Google to search any and all digital devices associated with the employee whether or not they are owned by Google. When I asked an employment lawyer about it he suggested it was fai…

I have read employment agreements in full for all jobs I have ever taken as well as read few of other people who have consulted me about such agreements. I have also read two books on IP laws and researched enough online. I do not think this clause is boilerplate.

On the other hand, whenever someone questions these lawyers about such clauses, they always tell you, ha, this is completely normal, it's boilerplate.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#324

Post by jdmichal »

hollander wrote: post #296
ChuckMcM wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if Levandowski has the files on his home > computer or something but they never touched Uber's > system? One of the things that surprised me about Google's employee agreement was that by signing it, the employee gives permission to Google to search any and all digital devices associated with the employee whether or not they are owned by Google. When I asked an employment lawyer about it he suggested it was fai…

How are they going to do this? Can they enter his house and then search his computer and disks? Take anything and ask for his password to decrypt them? If they simply ask him, and he wouldn't want them to find these files, he could delete them or put them on an encrypted stick that they don't know about. How does this work???

It works the same as any other contract works. You ask the other party to fulfill their obligations according to the contract they signed -- in this case, submitting their systems for review. If they refuse, then you take them to court for breach of contract.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#325

Post by pc86 »

ExactoKnight wrote: post #306
akiselev wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(IANAL) Imagine this was a criminal case where person A is charged with hiring person B to kill person C. Exhibit A is a forum post made by person A asking someone to assassinate person C for $15,000, exhibit B is a $15,000 check from person A to person B, and exhibit C is the gun used to kill person C, legally purchased by person A a few months ago and left at the scene of the crime with person B's fingerprints on i…

Without knowing the law, it seems like Uber could construct a viable legal defence around admitting that they inappropriately got access to these files, while simultaneously arguing that they should not face an injunction blocking work on self-driving technology, because the current technology they're developing differs significantly enough from the proprietary tech Google is trying to claim ownership over.

> Without knowing the law

The most important four words here.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#326

Post by pc86 »

unprepare wrote: post #321
dragonwriter wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the opinion of the court, a company has the authority to demand that their employee hands over the contents of his personal computer? This is absolutely the case with at-will employment, and maybe even with an executive or officer directly involved in a case even without that (and an executive likely has a contract that puts them under something other than simple at-will terms.) > That doesn't sound right... ple…

To me it sounds like you are saying no, an employer cannot compel you to give them your personal information, but that they can terminate your employment if you refuse to hand it over is that what you meant? I think 08-15's concern was more along the lines of an employer having the ability to demand someone to give up their personal information without their consent.

A company cannot make you give them any personal information without your consent. They can of course fire you for not doing so.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#327

Post by mnarayan01 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #94
defen wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Uber supposed to prove that they don't have the files? I'm asking purely from a legal / process perspective - would they have to turn over all their data to discovery, or something? If they legitimately don't have the files, how could they satisfy the judge? Or is it not possible that they don't have the files? What if Levandowski has the files on his home computer or something but they never touched Uber's sy…

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether the judge is going to impute Levandowski's failure to cooperate to Uber. From the transcript: MR. GONZÁLEZ (Uber's lawyer): So, Your Honor, first of all, we have searched and we are in the process of searching all of our computers for the sorts of information that you referred to. And if we find those documents, we intend to produce those. In addition, Your Honor, we…

> Uber has the authority to say to its employees, "If you have anything at home you bring it in here, give it to Mr. González, and he will turn it over to the Court."

So Uber says that to Levandowski, and he says "Sure, I'm an obedient employee, I'll give you the file if I have it. I don't have the file." Lying under oath is punishable by law (hence taking the 5th), but lying to your employer is (AFAIK) not.

Now if the judge is satisfied with that, then fair enough, but I doubt he would be. If he wants Uber to require that Levandowski not take the 5th as a condition of further employment he should just say so.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#328

Post by freehunter »

bartvk wrote: post #280
CobrastanJorji wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know where this guy stands on the political spectrum, but I know that I respect the crap out of him. He's got my support!

> don't know where this guy stands on the political spectrum (N/W-European here) Is that really a thing that US citizens pay attention to?

Judges are supposed to be non-partisan, but in reality a small number of decisions come down to what basically amounts to personal preference. There are sometimes laws and decisions supporting both sides of the argument and the judge is allowed to pick, as long as they can back it up with prior rulings or laws supporting their decision. Once the judge picks, that sets a precedent for future judges to rule the same way since judges tend to value a stable set of rulings and rarely overturn previous decisions (after all the appeals are settled out, of course) unless something major has changed since then.

So if a particular ruling comes down to personal preference and a judge personally leans conservative, they'll likely rule in a conservative fashion on those small number of cases. If they lean liberal, they'll likely rule in a liberal fashion. You often see this in Supreme Court decisions where the justices are split along political lines, with the conservative justices ruling for the conservative side of the argument and the liberal justices ruling for the liberal side.

That being said, the political stance of most lower judges doesn't matter as they have little impact on case law and few opportunities to make political decisions in their job.

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#329

Post by kazinator »

abhgh wrote: post #166
faitswulff wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His middle name is Haskell :p - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Haskell_Alsup

I was about to comment this. You don't mess around with this highly functional a judge ;-)

Strictly typed, lazy evaluator?

Re: Uber finds one allegedly stolen Waymo file on an employee’s personal device

#330

Post by dx034 »

manyoso wrote: post #101
bradleyjg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really the issue. The issue is whether the judge is going to impute Levandowski's failure to cooperate to Uber. From the transcript: MR. GONZÁLEZ (Uber's lawyer): So, Your Honor, first of all, we have searched and we are in the process of searching all of our computers for the sorts of information that you referred to. And if we find those documents, we intend to produce those. In addition, Your Honor, we…

Sounds like he is. The guy still runs the part of Uber's company that is under question here. They could fire him, but they have not. They want their cake - not being penalized for his adverse inference - while eating it too - letting him run the part of the company that is in question. And they have not denied that he took the files in question. With no one disputing it Google's claim stands and that alone, with or…

Which says a lot about the company. In most industries, stealing from your former employer would get you fired immediately. Especially if it draws the company itself in a lawsuit. Usually the first action is to suspend the employee and cut all access to demonstrate that you don't support the behaviour. The way Uber acts looks a lot like they want to profit from the stolen files.
Post reply on HN