3 ms·

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 cou

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.
      - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
        Personal attacks not welcome on HN? And "deranged theories" generally don't come with widespread sources and evidence, along with corroborating investigations by regulatory agencies all over the globe. But no, I don't really expect any Google employee to engage with me on a matter that will almost certainly cost them their job to do so. As the article alleges, I strongly suspect publishing Google's internal training about confidentiality would eventually lead to someone's termination, even if it was described as being for another reason.

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.
    - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
      Personal attacks not welcome on HN? And "deranged theories" generally don't come with widespread sources and evidence, along with corroborating investigations by regulatory agencies all over the globe. But no, I don't really expect any Google employee to engage with me on a matter that will almost certainly cost them their job to do so. As the article alleges, I strongly suspect publishing Google's internal training about confidentiality would eventually lead to someone's termination, even if it was described as being for another reason.