5 ms·

I don't see the problem here. You use third party products and services all the time in your professional capacity. If your employer wants you to have a google

I don't see the problem here. You use third party products and services all the time in your professional capacity. If your employer wants you to have a google account, i assume you'll use it for some job-related things. So it doesn't need any of your private data/usage profile (use company address/phone nr etc).

Sir_Substance 11y ago
The difference is in who the legal agreement is between, from googles (and the courts) perspective. For example, I do, in my professional capacity, use perforce. However, the agreement that perforce has is with my company. I'm just a number on the sheet of "how many users". A gmail account is a privately held account. The agreement is between me and google. Any liability is mine, and google invests heavy effort into continuing to track my via a plethora of cookies, fingerprinting techniques and other methods even after I log out. They do that on the basis that I personally have agreed to submit to it, my employer isn't involved. It's on the same level as if an employer mandated which phone company you could use. I don't mind my employer insisting on me using a specific provider, if he is providing the phone and paying for the plan. I might choose to leave that phone at work when I'm not on call though. But if it's my phone and I'm paying for the plan, I should have the right to choose who I give my support to. The alternative road takes us down a dodgy path of corporate alliances, where companies agree to have each others employees scratch their backs, and to hell with consumer rights. We're already seeing it with companies in the US paying wages on pre-paid visa/AA/mastercard cards. Inevitably, the employee ends up paying all the fees. $5 to check your balance, $10 to transfer it elsewhere etc.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  In practice, there is pretty much zero chance you'd have any problems with Google. But I support your stance as a general rule - an employee should not force you to enter into personal commitments as a part of the job.

Sir_Substance 11y ago

The difference is in who the legal agreement is between, from googles (and the courts) perspective. For example, I do, in my professional capacity, use perforce. However, the agreement that perforce has is with my company. I'm just a number on the sheet of "how many users". A gmail account is a privately held account. The agreement is between me and google. Any liability is mine, and google invests heavy effort into continuing to track my via a plethora of cookies, fingerprinting techniques and other methods even after I log out. They do that on the basis that I personally have agreed to submit to it, my employer isn't involved. It's on the same level as if an employer mandated which phone company you could use. I don't mind my employer insisting on me using a specific provider, if he is providing the phone and paying for the plan. I might choose to leave that phone at work when I'm not on call though. But if it's my phone and I'm paying for the plan, I should have the right to choose who I give my support to. The alternative road takes us down a dodgy path of corporate alliances, where companies agree to have each others employees scratch their backs, and to hell with consumer rights. We're already seeing it with companies in the US paying wages on pre-paid visa/AA/mastercard cards. Inevitably, the employee ends up paying all the fees. $5 to check your balance, $10 to transfer it elsewhere etc.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
In practice, there is pretty much zero chance you'd have any problems with Google. But I support your stance as a general rule - an employee should not force you to enter into personal commitments as a part of the job.