4 ms·

> as the DoL claims is required by law Unless you're a lawyer with more-than-public knowledge about this case, you're not qualified to determine whether or not

> as the DoL claims is required by law Unless you're a lawyer with more-than-public knowledge about this case, you're not qualified to determine whether or not Google has fully complied with the law, which they maintain they have.

stale2002 10y ago
Well then we shall see won't we? If Google isn't engaging in discrimination then they have no reason not to release the info to the government. Maybe it isn't technically illegal for Google to withhold this info. If so, they would be free to not release it. And us not idiot engineers and the media would be free to use this as evidence that Google must obviously be discriminating. The court of public opinion has different standards than the court of law. Don't like it? Think you're innocent? Then release the info and prove it! I see no reason to give large for profit companies the benefit of the doubt.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Are we really going with this argument? I thought we had grown past this stage now.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    With for profit companies, that have a history of illegally keeping down salaries, as proven by a court of law? Yeah, absolutely, we are going there.
    - SamReidHughes 10y ago
      The New York Times is a for profit company. Does it have no fourth amendment rights?
      - stale2002 10y ago
        Court of law != court of public opinion. If the New York Times was involved in a major scandal, and their response was "I plead the 5th", and refused to give any details, well I as a human being absolutely can judge them on their decision to not explain themselves, and I absolutely can judge them guilty. Don't like it when I judge you guilty and treat you as guilty? Then be more transparent and try and convince me otherwise.
        belovedeagle 10y ago
        > Court of law != court of public opinion. This is quickly becoming older than the stupid "First Amendment only applies to government so it's okay to censor opinions we don't like!" trope. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint legal principle, it's supposed to be a foundation of American society (and many like it). The legal system is ultimately just a mirror of society; if we disdain such principles for long enough they'll disappear from the courts as well. Many people would be happy to see that happen; perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not.
        SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Okay, that makes sense if you automatically believe whatever your government tells you.
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  Replace "Google" with "black people" or "muslims" and "discrimination" with "committing crimes". You can say exactly the same thing about any ethnic/religious minority that has ever had a member convicted of committing a crime about trying them in the court of public opinion, instead of innocent until proven guilty. "What were you doing last night? Give me evidence I want but am not legally entitled to. What are you hiding?"

stale2002 10y ago

Well then we shall see won't we? If Google isn't engaging in discrimination then they have no reason not to release the info to the government. Maybe it isn't technically illegal for Google to withhold this info. If so, they would be free to not release it. And us not idiot engineers and the media would be free to use this as evidence that Google must obviously be discriminating. The court of public opinion has different standards than the court of law. Don't like it? Think you're innocent? Then release the info and prove it! I see no reason to give large for profit companies the benefit of the doubt.

belovedeagle 10y ago
"If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear." Are we really going with this argument? I thought we had grown past this stage now.
- stale2002 10y ago
  With for profit companies, that have a history of illegally keeping down salaries, as proven by a court of law? Yeah, absolutely, we are going there.
  - SamReidHughes 10y ago
    The New York Times is a for profit company. Does it have no fourth amendment rights?
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Court of law != court of public opinion. If the New York Times was involved in a major scandal, and their response was "I plead the 5th", and refused to give any details, well I as a human being absolutely can judge them on their decision to not explain themselves, and I absolutely can judge them guilty. Don't like it when I judge you guilty and treat you as guilty? Then be more transparent and try and convince me otherwise.
      - belovedeagle 10y ago
        > Court of law != court of public opinion. This is quickly becoming older than the stupid "First Amendment only applies to government so it's okay to censor opinions we don't like!" trope. Innocent until proven guilty isn't just some quaint legal principle, it's supposed to be a foundation of American society (and many like it). The legal system is ultimately just a mirror of society; if we disdain such principles for long enough they'll disappear from the courts as well. Many people would be happy to see that happen; perhaps you're one of them, perhaps not.
      - SamReidHughes 10y ago
        Okay, that makes sense if you automatically believe whatever your government tells you.
jimmywanger 10y ago
Replace "Google" with "black people" or "muslims" and "discrimination" with "committing crimes". You can say exactly the same thing about any ethnic/religious minority that has ever had a member convicted of committing a crime about trying them in the court of public opinion, instead of innocent until proven guilty. "What were you doing last night? Give me evidence I want but am not legally entitled to. What are you hiding?"