3 ms·

> They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card Sounds like a farytale to me, unless those logs are

> They claim to have forensic logs of his laptop of him downloading them and copying them to a memory card Sounds like a farytale to me, unless those logs are captures and stored independently then otherwise anyone can claim having any kind of evidence against anyone involved. Besides, there might be many reasons of him doing that, let the backup be one.

zeven7 10y ago
In general there might be other reasons you can think of that he would do that, but at Google he would have been told where and when he's allowed to store & retrieve company data. It would have certainly been a fireable offence for him to copy company data to a memory card. You're not even allowed to store source code on your work laptop.
- beamatronic 10y ago
  At Google, is it common to develop code in some kind of cloud IDE?
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    Actually, yes, though not an IDE. The need for code on a laptop has been solved another way.
arcticfox 10y ago
Except for the part where those designs were not only not discarded, but actually used in Uber's technology and subsequently accidentally CC'd back to Google. (If I'm following the story correctly).
kbenson 10y ago
Read the original allegations, not the summary here. Just to start you off, here's some the things alleged by google you're missing from that summary: - He installed custom software to access the files. - The files were in a data store he had no normal access to. And here's my best guess as to why Google knows so much: - Google requires access to their networks using either your Google assigned device, or a pre-approved list of devices of your own (basically chromebooks). I know from past interactions with a friend that works at Google that they often give beta versions of software (Android) and/or hardware (Nexus phones, chromebooks) to employees to test. It's entirely possibly that quite a lot of debugging data is reported on some build. Additionally, that same friend noted that Google has a whole department dedicated to rooting our invalid access like what is alleged here, and since they control the devices available to access their network, there's really no conceivably limit to the amount of activity data they could collect about employee usage. In short, I see no reason why Google couldn't have as much data as they allege and possibly much more. to me, the fact that they waited until this stage to present it also seems calculated to benefit the most from those trying to defraud them (why not stop the forming of Otto initially, or the buyout?). If that's the case, I don't really have much sympathy for Uber, as they seem to possibly have been integral to the crime, and may have escaped punishment if it hadn't gotten this far. Edit: Whoops, said Waymo where I meant Otto,
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- zeven7 10y ago
  > why not stop the forming of Waymo initially You mean Otto?
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Yes, thanks!
- joering2 10y ago
  Thank you for this detailed summary. My point wasn't that Google doesn't have data; my point is that they want to use it as evidence.. but said evidence has been created by themselves!
  - Judgmentality 10y ago
    > My point wasn't that Google doesn't have data; my point is that they want to use it as evidence.. but said evidence has been created by themselves! That's like saying the police created their own evidence by performing an investigation.
    - joering2 10y ago
      No it is not. Google != police.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    Well, what's to differentiate that argument from being used against video evidence of a robbery? It's up to the defense to get the evidence deemed inadmissible to discredit it in court if there's any indication that it may not be legit. I imagine logs by themselves might not sway some people, but logs combined with whatever is found in a discovery process from Uber along with the fact that a parts supplier of Waymo happened to be making the exact same part for Otto (either because the secret part was requested or because they were provided the exact same design docs), doesn't make it look very good for Otto/Uber (if that allegation is correct).

zeven7 10y ago

In general there might be other reasons you can think of that he would do that, but at Google he would have been told where and when he's allowed to store & retrieve company data. It would have certainly been a fireable offence for him to copy company data to a memory card. You're not even allowed to store source code on your work laptop.

beamatronic 10y ago
At Google, is it common to develop code in some kind of cloud IDE?
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  Actually, yes, though not an IDE. The need for code on a laptop has been solved another way.

arcticfox 10y ago

Except for the part where those designs were not only not discarded, but actually used in Uber's technology and subsequently accidentally CC'd back to Google. (If I'm following the story correctly).

kbenson 10y ago

Read the original allegations, not the summary here. Just to start you off, here's some the things alleged by google you're missing from that summary: - He installed custom software to access the files. - The files were in a data store he had no normal access to. And here's my best guess as to why Google knows so much: - Google requires access to their networks using either your Google assigned device, or a pre-approved list of devices of your own (basically chromebooks). I know from past interactions with a friend that works at Google that they often give beta versions of software (Android) and/or hardware (Nexus phones, chromebooks) to employees to test. It's entirely possibly that quite a lot of debugging data is reported on some build. Additionally, that same friend noted that Google has a whole department dedicated to rooting our invalid access like what is alleged here, and since they control the devices available to access their network, there's really no conceivably limit to the amount of activity data they could collect about employee usage. In short, I see no reason why Google couldn't have as much data as they allege and possibly much more. to me, the fact that they waited until this stage to present it also seems calculated to benefit the most from those trying to defraud them (why not stop the forming of Otto initially, or the buyout?). If that's the case, I don't really have much sympathy for Uber, as they seem to possibly have been integral to the crime, and may have escaped punishment if it hadn't gotten this far. Edit: Whoops, said Waymo where I meant Otto,

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zeven7 10y ago
> why not stop the forming of Waymo initially You mean Otto?
- kbenson 10y ago
  Yes, thanks!
joering2 10y ago
Thank you for this detailed summary. My point wasn't that Google doesn't have data; my point is that they want to use it as evidence.. but said evidence has been created by themselves!
- Judgmentality 10y ago
  > My point wasn't that Google doesn't have data; my point is that they want to use it as evidence.. but said evidence has been created by themselves! That's like saying the police created their own evidence by performing an investigation.
  - joering2 10y ago
    No it is not. Google != police.
- kbenson 10y ago
  Well, what's to differentiate that argument from being used against video evidence of a robbery? It's up to the defense to get the evidence deemed inadmissible to discredit it in court if there's any indication that it may not be legit. I imagine logs by themselves might not sway some people, but logs combined with whatever is found in a discovery process from Uber along with the fact that a parts supplier of Waymo happened to be making the exact same part for Otto (either because the secret part was requested or because they were provided the exact same design docs), doesn't make it look very good for Otto/Uber (if that allegation is correct).