4 ms·

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 th

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.
- pcwalton 9y ago
  I have no idea what this means.
  - erikb 9y ago
    Well, it would be better to either not say anything, or ask some kind of question that brings the conversation forward. I really don't want to guess what you don't understand. E.g., I hope you mean what "getting fired" means. But maybe you don't know that getting fired often results in receiving a severance package when the employee sues? But that is common practice as well. So really, from where should I pick you up?
jordache 9y ago
who said the person was innocent? I would give google benefit of doubt that it's in their utmost interest to identify the actual leaker and not just make an example of anyone
- darklajid 9y ago
  You might be right that the person was not innocent. No, you do not give the accuser (and in this case, the company firing someone from their job) the 'benefit of the doubt' in my world. Either it's a clear cut case (fine) or it's not (if you fire someone in this case, you're an asshole working for a shitty company). Now, I'm not saying that Google DID this. But the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt.
  - jordache 9y ago
    google dismissed the person. I'm giving google benefit of doubt to dismiss the actual leaker. Why would google dismiss a random individual who may be innocent? It doesn't provide them with the resolution they seek
lostboys67 9y ago
Well that is why you have to have a "fair" discipline procedure with the right to be accompanied by a "friend" and appeals process heard by a member outside of your team.

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.

pcwalton 9y ago
I have no idea what this means.
- erikb 9y ago
  Well, it would be better to either not say anything, or ask some kind of question that brings the conversation forward. I really don't want to guess what you don't understand. E.g., I hope you mean what "getting fired" means. But maybe you don't know that getting fired often results in receiving a severance package when the employee sues? But that is common practice as well. So really, from where should I pick you up?

jordache 9y ago

who said the person was innocent? I would give google benefit of doubt that it's in their utmost interest to identify the actual leaker and not just make an example of anyone

darklajid 9y ago
You might be right that the person was not innocent. No, you do not give the accuser (and in this case, the company firing someone from their job) the 'benefit of the doubt' in my world. Either it's a clear cut case (fine) or it's not (if you fire someone in this case, you're an asshole working for a shitty company). Now, I'm not saying that Google DID this. But the defendant should have the benefit of the doubt.
- jordache 9y ago
  google dismissed the person. I'm giving google benefit of doubt to dismiss the actual leaker. Why would google dismiss a random individual who may be innocent? It doesn't provide them with the resolution they seek

lostboys67 9y ago

Well that is why you have to have a "fair" discipline procedure with the right to be accompanied by a "friend" and appeals process heard by a member outside of your team.