6 ms·

This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point, paragraph 45: “Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violate

This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point, paragraph 45: “Don’t send an e-mail that says ‘I think we broke the law’ or ‘I think we violated this contract.’” That seems like pretty reasonable training. You shouldn't put that on the record because you're not an attorney. You are just some Dork, or Senior Dork, or Staff Dork, or whatever grade of Dork you happen to be who is still not an attorney. Maybe the attorneys also have to take training that advises them not to say "I think this dereference might be undefined behavior" in emails. Who knows.

notimetorelax 10y ago
There's nothing wrong with such emails if sent to company attorneys. Or as a whistleblower to right authorities. Not to public though.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  No, the point of such policies is so that if the company is ever gets sued and is subpoenaed for e-mails, the opposing counsel don't get to get in front of a jury and point to Joe Schmoe at the company writing 'Yep, I think we broke the law!' This is standard employee training presumably not just at Google, but at basically every company I've ever worked for. The rule goes basically: if you don't think what you write would look good on the front page of the NYT, then don't put it in an e-mail.
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    Well if you send it to legal and mark it client attorney privileged they have an argument from suppressing it in discovery.
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Which can be argued against since you're not actually the attorney's client at the time of writing the e-mail, only the corporation is [1]. 'Some courts employ the Control Group Test whereby protection is available only to the corporation's controlling executives and managers.' Doesn't seem like a risk a competent retained counsel would want to take, in any case. [1] http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm
      - hedora 10y ago
        According to the link, the control group test is diminishing in use, and if the employee has significant influence over the subject of the question (as a whistleblower or member of the team in question would), then they are in the control group. The only way to really get screwed over by these tests would be to instate a "no emailing the lawyers about corporate wrongdoing" policy (causing your employees to fail all three tests in the link). Of course, the lawsuit alleges that Google did exactly that. I wonder if the courts will (imho correctly) strip a large percentage of their internal legal communications of attorney/client privilege. Time to grab the popcorn.
  - kriro 10y ago
    So I can't send an email that explains why I think X algorithm is slow and should be changed? Seems silly. NYT: To the dismay of their employees, Google insist on using slowALGO, possibly costing them X sum.
  - rimantas 10y ago
    This sounds like somone brings up the email with "I think you are a moron" as an evidence in the psychiatric evaluation that the person is indeed a moron. If person thinks something they should be able to express that and have a chance to be corrected if they are wrong.
    - tkxxx7 10y ago
      You must not have a great time on Twitter.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
joshkpeterson 10y ago
It doesn't matter if it seems silly to you. It matters if Google broke the law or not. I know you think it's silly for non-lawyers to speculate on whether a law was broken, so I'll say no more.
onion2k 10y ago
Why not though? What's wrong with it? In the case where the employee is wrong then nothing happens besides, maybe, some negative news stories if it's leaked. That's reasonably controllable. On the other hand though, if the employee is actually correct, then the employer is protected from any claim they were informed about the illegal activity if employees don't use language that says they think wrongdoing is going on. Should employees work under threat of breaking rules designed to protect their employer if the employer is breaking the law? I don't think so.
- meddlepal 10y ago
  As an engineer coming from a family of lawyers... engineers think they understand the law, but really they suck at it and when that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery.
  - onion2k 10y ago
    that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery. That's exactly my point. I'm asking whether or not an employer should write a contract that specifically states the employee should modify their behaviour to ensure things aren't discovered later - namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on. I don't think they should. If my employer wanted me to sign something that said "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" I think I ought to say no.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on The problem is engineers lack a good grasp of how the law works compared to lawyers - sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery. Leading to unnecessary settlements not as a matter of law, but of optics. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." > "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" That's not what they are saying - they are saying don't use email to do it. I mean would you appreciate it if your startup's first employee sends an email stating "We are infringing on these 18 Microsoft patents" on the record?
amelius 10y ago
> This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point [...] You cherrypicked one point out of the complaint, hence you cannot say anything about the validity of the entire complaint. Do the other points, summarized by randomdrake [1], also seem silly to you? And when considered as a whole (not as individual points), does it still seem silly? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226767
blazespin 10y ago
Lol, you absolutely can not do that. That is sooo crazy. You actually have to encourage your employees to speak up when they see something is illegal. Of course everyone knows don't ever put that in email
- vitus 10y ago
  Well, we are encouraged to speak up. We're also encouraged to use attorney-client privilege correctly (and trained to do so in the "You said WHAT?" training that the suit alludes to) -- email directly to the legal team, subject line clearly stating the desire to invoke attorney-client privilege, avoid CC'ing anyone else, etc.
  - stuckagain 10y ago
    Yes exactly. The "You said what?" training is mostly concerned with how to escalate to legal department when you see something wrong.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Open invitation to Google employees: I can't imagine that the "You said WHAT?" training is somehow a trade secret. Post it. (On YouTube... lol) The inherent problem with Googlers defending Google, beyond the obvious conflict of interest of expressing views about the company that writes your paycheck, is that Googlers expect us to trust them that the internal info they can't share isn't suspect. If you can't share what's actually going on internally, you shouldn't be defending it. Let the case happen, with any luck these internal presentations, policies, and memos will end up in the public record, and we'll all be able to see what's really going on.
      - stuckagain 10y ago
        Nobody is going to engage with you. You have posted some deranged theory on every google-related story this site has ever posted.

notimetorelax 10y ago

There's nothing wrong with such emails if sent to company attorneys. Or as a whistleblower to right authorities. Not to public though.

smallnamespace 10y ago
No, the point of such policies is so that if the company is ever gets sued and is subpoenaed for e-mails, the opposing counsel don't get to get in front of a jury and point to Joe Schmoe at the company writing 'Yep, I think we broke the law!' This is standard employee training presumably not just at Google, but at basically every company I've ever worked for. The rule goes basically: if you don't think what you write would look good on the front page of the NYT, then don't put it in an e-mail.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Well if you send it to legal and mark it client attorney privileged they have an argument from suppressing it in discovery.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Which can be argued against since you're not actually the attorney's client at the time of writing the e-mail, only the corporation is [1]. 'Some courts employ the Control Group Test whereby protection is available only to the corporation's controlling executives and managers.' Doesn't seem like a risk a competent retained counsel would want to take, in any case. [1] http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm http://www.acc.com/legalresources/quickcounsel/acpfihc.cfm
    - hedora 10y ago
      According to the link, the control group test is diminishing in use, and if the employee has significant influence over the subject of the question (as a whistleblower or member of the team in question would), then they are in the control group. The only way to really get screwed over by these tests would be to instate a "no emailing the lawyers about corporate wrongdoing" policy (causing your employees to fail all three tests in the link). Of course, the lawsuit alleges that Google did exactly that. I wonder if the courts will (imho correctly) strip a large percentage of their internal legal communications of attorney/client privilege. Time to grab the popcorn.
- kriro 10y ago
  So I can't send an email that explains why I think X algorithm is slow and should be changed? Seems silly. NYT: To the dismay of their employees, Google insist on using slowALGO, possibly costing them X sum.
- rimantas 10y ago
  This sounds like somone brings up the email with "I think you are a moron" as an evidence in the psychiatric evaluation that the person is indeed a moron. If person thinks something they should be able to express that and have a chance to be corrected if they are wrong.
  - tkxxx7 10y ago
    You must not have a great time on Twitter.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

joshkpeterson 10y ago

It doesn't matter if it seems silly to you. It matters if Google broke the law or not. I know you think it's silly for non-lawyers to speculate on whether a law was broken, so I'll say no more.

onion2k 10y ago

Why not though? What's wrong with it? In the case where the employee is wrong then nothing happens besides, maybe, some negative news stories if it's leaked. That's reasonably controllable. On the other hand though, if the employee is actually correct, then the employer is protected from any claim they were informed about the illegal activity if employees don't use language that says they think wrongdoing is going on. Should employees work under threat of breaking rules designed to protect their employer if the employer is breaking the law? I don't think so.

meddlepal 10y ago
As an engineer coming from a family of lawyers... engineers think they understand the law, but really they suck at it and when that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery.
- onion2k 10y ago
  that shit does end up in court it looks really bad because it comes out in discovery. That's exactly my point. I'm asking whether or not an employer should write a contract that specifically states the employee should modify their behaviour to ensure things aren't discovered later - namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on. I don't think they should. If my employer wanted me to sign something that said "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" I think I ought to say no.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > namely that the employer knew (or at least "was informed") that illegal things were going on The problem is engineers lack a good grasp of how the law works compared to lawyers - sometimes the action is not illegal, but it will still looks bad after discovery. Leading to unnecessary settlements not as a matter of law, but of optics. "If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him." > "If you see things happening that you believe might be illegal, please keep quiet about it because you don't understand the law" That's not what they are saying - they are saying don't use email to do it. I mean would you appreciate it if your startup's first employee sends an email stating "We are infringing on these 18 Microsoft patents" on the record?

amelius 10y ago

> This complaint seems pretty silly. Just taking a single point [...] You cherrypicked one point out of the complaint, hence you cannot say anything about the validity of the entire complaint. Do the other points, summarized by randomdrake [1], also seem silly to you? And when considered as a whole (not as individual points), does it still seem silly? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226767 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13226767

blazespin 10y ago

Lol, you absolutely can not do that. That is sooo crazy. You actually have to encourage your employees to speak up when they see something is illegal. Of course everyone knows don't ever put that in email

vitus 10y ago
Well, we are encouraged to speak up. We're also encouraged to use attorney-client privilege correctly (and trained to do so in the "You said WHAT?" training that the suit alludes to) -- email directly to the legal team, subject line clearly stating the desire to invoke attorney-client privilege, avoid CC'ing anyone else, etc.
- stuckagain 10y ago
  Yes exactly. The "You said what?" training is mostly concerned with how to escalate to legal department when you see something wrong.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Open invitation to Google employees: I can't imagine that the "You said WHAT?" training is somehow a trade secret. Post it. (On YouTube... lol) The inherent problem with Googlers defending Google, beyond the obvious conflict of interest of expressing views about the company that writes your paycheck, is that Googlers expect us to trust them that the internal info they can't share isn't suspect. If you can't share what's actually going on internally, you shouldn't be defending it. Let the case happen, with any luck these internal presentations, policies, and memos will end up in the public record, and we'll all be able to see what's really going on.
    - stuckagain 10y ago
      Nobody is going to engage with you. You have posted some deranged theory on every google-related story this site has ever posted.