5 ms·

An internal Google email shows how the company cracks down on leaks

48 points by bobbytherobot 9y ago

ungzd 9y ago
Lawsuit against world's leading AI corporation that tries to stop leaking secret dank memes. What a time to be alive!
ghughes 9y ago
Reporter decries company for prohibiting its employees from discussing company business with reporters.
- 659087 9y ago
  I think it's more than fair to expect a company aiming to make the entire world population fully transparent to itself, to be transparent to the media/public. Eric Schmidt believes you shouldn't do anything you wouldn't want to share with anyone (aka Google). Why doesn't that work both ways? Does Google have "something to hide"? Or is Google exempt from the whole "privacy is a thing of the past" situation these companies are trying to force on us all?
lima 9y ago
Recent HN thread that ended up flagged, including a comment from a Googler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14394600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14394600
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
erikb 9y ago
I don't get it. Cracking down on leaks is called security. Everycompany should do it, and the big ones certainly do. What's the deal with that?
- nuggien 9y ago
  Sure but if you setup a system that encourages leak reporting by your employees and then unjustly fire an innocent person claiming they leaked data, wouldn't that be a big deal?
  - omginternets 9y ago
    I suppose it's a signal-detection problem. One would need to understand the frequency at which misses vs false-alarms happen to judge whether this is a big deal or not. From one data-point alone, this is absolutely a "non-story".
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - stingrae 9y ago
    I am pretty sure firing requires much more than reporting by employees. It just gives them a place to look. Given the verbosity of the logging they collect on employee laptops, as seen in the Levandowski/Uber case, I am sure they can get solid evidence leading up to a firing.
    - erikb 9y ago
      In my country you can fire everybody all the time. Of course the literal wording in the law is different. So the lawyers will figure out how much money your employer needs to pay you after. The major question for the employer therefore is not whether or not he can fire, but whether or not he can afford the budget cut.
      - stingrae 9y ago
        Sure. Though there is a culture cost to an environment where you actually fire people without cause.
  - erikb 9y ago
    Well, people get fired for wrong/incomplete reasons all the time. And if the employer can't proof it well enough he just needs to pay more. Most of us are happy to get 50-200% of a year's salary for no work. That's why it's not really a big deal or a problem for society.
SA500 9y ago
This is a non story. Product leaks have a massive business impact. Hence Apple's culture of extreme secrecy. Google is somewhere in between
- wyldfire 9y ago
  It doesn't seem that simple. It sounds as if the scope includes more than just products. > The lawsuit alleges that Google’s leaks policy covers essentially all company information and prohibits reasonable discussion about company activities. ... > One policy allegedly even prevents employees from writing a novel about working for a large Silicon Valley corporation — like, for instance, Dave Eggers’ dystopian novel, The Circle — without first getting final draft approval from Google. John Doe v. Google, Inc [1]. [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/334736972/John-Doe-vs-Google-Inc#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/334736972/John-Doe-vs-Google...
  - lostboys67 9y ago
    Not sure that would be Justiciable on first amendment rights alone
    - greenyoda 9y ago
      Google is not bound by the First Amendment - only the federal, state and local governments are (and institutions they run, such as state universities).
      - lostboys67 9y ago
        Banning employees from discussing pay /conditions etc is illegal in the USA
- jancsika 9y ago
  From Google's internal investigator's memo: > If you’re considering sharing confidential information to a reporter—or to anyone externally—for the love of all that’s Googley, please reconsider! Not only could it cost you your job, but it also betrays the values that makes us a community. So the question is-- what constitutes "confidential" at Google? Let's say a bad apple-- coworker or boss-- is abusing their power in a way that affects a particular class of employees, and the employee has exhausted the proper internal channels without success/resolution. Is that information "confidential" according to the typical contract Google employees sign?
rrggrr 9y ago
I see the memo author is former US Dept State diplomatic security. I always thought of State DS agents in terms of personal protection and not so much counterintelligence and investigations. Guess I was wrong. I would have expected to see a senior ex-FBI or former IC community member in this role.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Prior to Google, he had 6 years as a "Special Agent" for the US State Department in Israel. He lists his department as DS/CI, where CI would be "criminal investigations". So, specifically in the subarea that's doing that. That agency, for example, investigated and apprehended one of the 1993 WTC bombers. Interesting story involving Mr Katz: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224589/Google-threatened-bartender-employee-accidentally-left-secret-phone-bar.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224589/Google-threa...
  - rrggrr 9y ago
    Great link. I'm pretty sure the CI stands for counterintelligence, but I may be wrong. Regardless, I have no opinion, just though it was interesting to see where former DS agents find themselves after service.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      Looked it up...you're right: "Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence,Counterintelligence Division (CI division)" With 3 branches: DS/CI/ASB - Analysis Branch DS/CI/IB - Investigations Branch DS/CI/PPR - Policy and Programs Branch
bobbytherobot 9y ago
I'm curious on others insight about one section of the email management sent to employees regarding leaks: "Please remember: whether malicious or unintentional, leaks damage our culture. Be aware of the company information you share and with whom you share it. If you’re considering sharing confidential information to a reporter—or to anyone externally—for the love of all that’s Googley, please reconsider! Not only could it cost you your job, but it also betrays the values that makes us a community." I certainly understand the potential business impact leaking information, but what is the aspect of the Google culture a leaked email harms?
- googsh0tz 9y ago
  Trading the short game for the long game.
- zeroxfe 9y ago
  The culture of transparency. Google is enormously transparent internally. The more there are leaks, the less incentive there is to be transparent.
  - bobbytherobot 9y ago
    Ahh, thanks.
- MS_Buys_Upvotes 9y ago
  You're right - it doesn't apply to culture. The "corporate person" is being a sociopath as usual and rather than saying "it harms our company" they attempt to spin it into something that hurts the individuals that work at the company. It doesn't. It hurts the "corporate person", but they can't come out and say that.
wl 9y ago
It's sad to see that they've harmed accessibility (no more transcripts) under some misguided notion that it helps keep secrets. The video of these talks is still available, of course. Maybe it's captioned?
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Always raises the issues of due process. An interesting challenge when I was there was leaving your workstation unlocked. You go up to get a soda or something and don't want to lock your workstation, go get your beverage, come back and reenter your password. But you should, someone in your cube or nearby could prank you and send an email to the group of an embarrassing nature. Of course they could also send an internal only email to re/code which if they didn't like you might get you fired. The key is keeping the investigation folks above reproach. If they can't convince that they have done a fair job investigating, you open yourself up for a lot of issues down the road.
sctb 9y ago
Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14401074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14401074

48 points by bobbytherobot 9y ago

ungzd 9y ago

Lawsuit against world's leading AI corporation that tries to stop leaking secret dank memes. What a time to be alive!

ghughes 9y ago

Reporter decries company for prohibiting its employees from discussing company business with reporters.

659087 9y ago
I think it's more than fair to expect a company aiming to make the entire world population fully transparent to itself, to be transparent to the media/public. Eric Schmidt believes you shouldn't do anything you wouldn't want to share with anyone (aka Google). Why doesn't that work both ways? Does Google have "something to hide"? Or is Google exempt from the whole "privacy is a thing of the past" situation these companies are trying to force on us all?

lima 9y ago

Recent HN thread that ended up flagged, including a comment from a Googler: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14394600 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14394600

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

erikb 9y ago

I don't get it. Cracking down on leaks is called security. Everycompany should do it, and the big ones certainly do. What's the deal with that?

nuggien 9y ago
Sure but if you setup a system that encourages leak reporting by your employees and then unjustly fire an innocent person claiming they leaked data, wouldn't that be a big deal?
- omginternets 9y ago
  I suppose it's a signal-detection problem. One would need to understand the frequency at which misses vs false-alarms happen to judge whether this is a big deal or not. From one data-point alone, this is absolutely a "non-story".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- stingrae 9y ago
  I am pretty sure firing requires much more than reporting by employees. It just gives them a place to look. Given the verbosity of the logging they collect on employee laptops, as seen in the Levandowski/Uber case, I am sure they can get solid evidence leading up to a firing.
  - erikb 9y ago
    In my country you can fire everybody all the time. Of course the literal wording in the law is different. So the lawyers will figure out how much money your employer needs to pay you after. The major question for the employer therefore is not whether or not he can fire, but whether or not he can afford the budget cut.
    - stingrae 9y ago
      Sure. Though there is a culture cost to an environment where you actually fire people without cause.
- erikb 9y ago
  Well, people get fired for wrong/incomplete reasons all the time. And if the employer can't proof it well enough he just needs to pay more. Most of us are happy to get 50-200% of a year's salary for no work. That's why it's not really a big deal or a problem for society.

SA500 9y ago

This is a non story. Product leaks have a massive business impact. Hence Apple's culture of extreme secrecy. Google is somewhere in between

wyldfire 9y ago
It doesn't seem that simple. It sounds as if the scope includes more than just products. > The lawsuit alleges that Google’s leaks policy covers essentially all company information and prohibits reasonable discussion about company activities. ... > One policy allegedly even prevents employees from writing a novel about working for a large Silicon Valley corporation — like, for instance, Dave Eggers’ dystopian novel, The Circle — without first getting final draft approval from Google. John Doe v. Google, Inc [1]. [1] https://www.scribd.com/document/334736972/John-Doe-vs-Google-Inc#from_embed https://www.scribd.com/document/334736972/John-Doe-vs-Google...
- lostboys67 9y ago
  Not sure that would be Justiciable on first amendment rights alone
  - greenyoda 9y ago
    Google is not bound by the First Amendment - only the federal, state and local governments are (and institutions they run, such as state universities).
    - lostboys67 9y ago
      Banning employees from discussing pay /conditions etc is illegal in the USA
jancsika 9y ago
From Google's internal investigator's memo: > If you’re considering sharing confidential information to a reporter—or to anyone externally—for the love of all that’s Googley, please reconsider! Not only could it cost you your job, but it also betrays the values that makes us a community. So the question is-- what constitutes "confidential" at Google? Let's say a bad apple-- coworker or boss-- is abusing their power in a way that affects a particular class of employees, and the employee has exhausted the proper internal channels without success/resolution. Is that information "confidential" according to the typical contract Google employees sign?

rrggrr 9y ago

I see the memo author is former US Dept State diplomatic security. I always thought of State DS agents in terms of personal protection and not so much counterintelligence and investigations. Guess I was wrong. I would have expected to see a senior ex-FBI or former IC community member in this role.

tyingq 9y ago
Prior to Google, he had 6 years as a "Special Agent" for the US State Department in Israel. He lists his department as DS/CI, where CI would be "criminal investigations". So, specifically in the subarea that's doing that. That agency, for example, investigated and apprehended one of the 1993 WTC bombers. Interesting story involving Mr Katz: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224589/Google-threatened-bartender-employee-accidentally-left-secret-phone-bar.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2224589/Google-threa...
- rrggrr 9y ago
  Great link. I'm pretty sure the CI stands for counterintelligence, but I may be wrong. Regardless, I have no opinion, just though it was interesting to see where former DS agents find themselves after service.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Looked it up...you're right: "Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Office of Investigations and Counterintelligence,Counterintelligence Division (CI division)" With 3 branches: DS/CI/ASB - Analysis Branch DS/CI/IB - Investigations Branch DS/CI/PPR - Policy and Programs Branch

bobbytherobot 9y ago

I'm curious on others insight about one section of the email management sent to employees regarding leaks: "Please remember: whether malicious or unintentional, leaks damage our culture. Be aware of the company information you share and with whom you share it. If you’re considering sharing confidential information to a reporter—or to anyone externally—for the love of all that’s Googley, please reconsider! Not only could it cost you your job, but it also betrays the values that makes us a community." I certainly understand the potential business impact leaking information, but what is the aspect of the Google culture a leaked email harms?

googsh0tz 9y ago
Trading the short game for the long game.
zeroxfe 9y ago
The culture of transparency. Google is enormously transparent internally. The more there are leaks, the less incentive there is to be transparent.
- bobbytherobot 9y ago
  Ahh, thanks.
MS_Buys_Upvotes 9y ago
You're right - it doesn't apply to culture. The "corporate person" is being a sociopath as usual and rather than saying "it harms our company" they attempt to spin it into something that hurts the individuals that work at the company. It doesn't. It hurts the "corporate person", but they can't come out and say that.

wl 9y ago

It's sad to see that they've harmed accessibility (no more transcripts) under some misguided notion that it helps keep secrets. The video of these talks is still available, of course. Maybe it's captioned?

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Always raises the issues of due process. An interesting challenge when I was there was leaving your workstation unlocked. You go up to get a soda or something and don't want to lock your workstation, go get your beverage, come back and reenter your password. But you should, someone in your cube or nearby could prank you and send an email to the group of an embarrassing nature. Of course they could also send an internal only email to re/code which if they didn't like you might get you fired. The key is keeping the investigation folks above reproach. If they can't convince that they have done a fair job investigating, you open yourself up for a lot of issues down the road.

sctb 9y ago

Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14401074 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14401074